Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004, will not be attracted in the case of clearance of waste and by-product arising on the manufacturer of taxable final product. Under the facts & circumstances we also hold that the extended period of limitation is not attracted in this case. Accordingly, we allow the appeals with consequential benefits - reversal of credit not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - E/2040 & 2041/07-EX(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO-70808-70809/2016 - Dated:- 9-6-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for Appellants Shri V.R. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER The present appeals are filed by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom excise duty under Notification No. 3/2005-CE (entry number 6). It appeared to revenue that no separate account was maintained by job worker PEL in respect of inputs going into manufacturer of dutiable goods and the inputs going into generation waste (broken noodles)/exempted goods. As such, PEL was therefore, directed to pay 8%/10% of the price of exempted goods under Rules 57CC of erstwhile CER, 1944/ Rule 6 (3b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002/2004. Accordingly S.C. notice was issued for demand of ₹ 1,39,568/- for broken noodles cleared during the period 2001-02 to 2005-06 with proposal to impose penalty. Further, Nestle India Ltd was also issued show cause notice as to why not penalty to be imposed, as they appears to have colluded .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is India Ltd Vs Union of India 2009 (233) E.L.T.301(Bom.). This appeal was against the larger bench order of this Tribunal reported at 2007(208) E.L.T.25 (Del-LB). The issue before the larger Bench was whether 8% of the amount as per earstwhile Rule 57CC of CER 1944 (now Rule 6 of CCR, 2002) is required to be discharged, before removal of product, as such products are exempted from whole of duty, therein in light of conflicting views. It was held as follows:- 13 . The appellants reference to the provisions of Rule 57D in support of their contention that modvat credit is not to be denied if a part of the same is contained in the by-product, is indicative of the legislative intent that reversal of 8% amount of the value of the by-produc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tended product and even if the same is being sold as exempted product, the same should be treated as by-product and Rule 57CC would not apply? The answer to above question is a clear No . 14 . The issue in the instant case is not relatable to reversal of the credit originally taken by the appellant on the ground of emergence of any by-product. The issue before us is a straight and simple interpretation of Rule 57CC, which as already held does not make any distinction between exempt final product or exempt by product. As along as the excisable product cleared from the assessees factory enjoys exemption or attracts nil rate of duty, provisions of Rule 57CC will come into play. The straight answer to the above question lies in the literal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iable to Excise duty, the manufacturer would not be denied full credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. Further observed that Rule 57 CC applies only if the madvated inputs are used in the manufacture of both dutiable final product and exempted final product, and the manufacturer has not maintained separate accounts, so as to ascertain the quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Accordingly allowing the appeal Rallis India Ltd it was held that on clearance of waste, scrap and by-product arising on the manufacture will be covered by Rule 57 D and no amount of Central Excise is to be reversed. It was further pointed out by Ld. Counsel that ruling in the case of Rallies I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates