TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Rule 6 of CCR is not attracted if a by product emerging in the process of manufacture of final product is cleared without payment of duty. The present case is not related to levy of duty on Iron Ore Fines and Coal Fines under Section 3, but relates to removal of exempted goods. We find such assertion very strange to say the least. When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and input services. Noticing that the appellants cleared Iron Ore Fines and Coal Fines, the Revenue proceeded to demand and recover 10% of value of these goods cleared, treating them as exempted goods and applying provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. The Original Authority confirmed an amount of ₹ 69,18,966/- towards such demand and imposed penalty of eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterial plant. The Iron Ore Fines in powder form cannot be used for manufacture of Sponge Iron as Ore of desired size can only be used for further manufacture. 4. The first point to consider is whether the said Fines (Iron Ore/Coal) are manufactured excisable product by the appellant. The Tribunal in Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd. - 2016 (333) ELT 415 (Tribunal) examined similar set of fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty, is not at all mentioned in the impugned. Rather the manufacture of subject goods and exemption of said goods were presumed and revenue proceeded accordingly. In fact in the cross objection filed by the Revenue, it is asserted that the present case is not related to leviability of duty on Iron Ore Fines and Coal Fines under Section 3, but relates to removal of exempted goods. We find suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
