TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate cannot be equated with the exemption is law settled by the Apex Court in the case of SRF Ltd. (supra). This Tribunal in the case of SRF Ltd. (2003 (11) TMI 5 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) has held that the clearances made under Chapter X procedure or under bond is not same thing as clearances of goods wholly exempt or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty hence provisions of Rule 57C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 are not applicable holding such view, held in favour of the assessee that he need not to reverse 8% / 10% of the value of the goods cleared by them by following Ch. 10 procedure. - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeals No. E/802/10 and E/274/11 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2015 - M V Ravindran, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ro Melt Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2014 (300) ELT 232 (Guj.) has held that the question of remission of duty under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules may not arise as the clearances are made under Chapter X of Central Excise Rules and the duty liability as paid by the appellant therein. He relied upon the ratio to submit that the clearances effected by the appellant herein under Chapter X is an exemption availed by them under Notification 6/2006-CE. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant had cleared the finished goods to various consumers without payment of duty on C.T.2 certificate produced by such consumers. On perusal of the said C.T. 2 certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der exempted goods and is not chargeable to nil rate of duty, 10% of the amount is not payable under Rule 6. In the case of Kesoram Rayon vs. CCE, Kolkata-IV reported in 2007 (83) RLT 397 (CESTAT-Kol) wherein the appellants took credit of input for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid, part of which was supplied under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty and the appellant did not maintain separate account and hence the department has demanded 8% of the value of sulphuric Acid is not sustainable and credit on inputs is not tenable in respect of the sulphuric acid supplied duty free under Chapter X procedure. In the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Guljag Industries Limited reported in 2008 (86) RLT 133 (CESTAT-Del) again it was held that goods remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geable to nil rate of duty but in the instant case is not so as the final product is the sulphuric acid only and the same is dutiable product it is not a exempted product and the same was cleared to the manufacture of fertilizers under CT-3 Certificate/bond hence the facts of the Ballarpur Industries case are not applicable to this case. But the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in that case is squarely applicable to this case also. Further, I find that the ratio of the case of Aureola Chemicals Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2004 (175) ELT 148 (Tri-Del) is squarely applicable to this case wherein it was held that the appellants were clearing the Spent Sulphuric Acid under Chapter X procedure to various manufacturers of fertilizers agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
