TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand on merit and in the appeal, no challenge is made to the findings of the Commissioner (A) dropping the demand on limitation, then the appeal filed by the department will not survive - there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) - appeal dismissed - decided against Department. - E/21165/2015-SM - 20702/2017 - Dated:- 19-5-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. K.T. Pakshirajan, AR For the appellant Mr. V. B. Gaikwad, Advocate For the respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the Commissioner (A) wherein the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. Briefly the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it with effect from 1.4.2011 onwards which showed that they were availing of the CENVAT credit on the inputs and input services used in the manufacture of compost prior to 1.3.2011. It appeared to the Department that they have not complied with the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCR and had not paid the duty due in this regard (non-maintenance of separate account as required under Rule 6(2) of the CCR for the quantity of common inputs/input services used in the manufacture of the said compost and the dutiable sugar /molasses). It appeared that they had suppressed the facts of manufacture and clearance of compost by using credit availed input services as the said clearances were not declared by them in their ER-1 returns/correspondence and but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and the assessee is liable to pay an amount equal to 5% or 10% of the sale value of the compost manure as per Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and assessee has failed to do the same. He supported the Order-in-Original confirming the demand. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by series of judgments passed by various Benches of the Tribunal and also the High Court. He further submitted that the compost is not a manufactured product and is non-excisable product and therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR are not applicable to the compost. In support of his submission, he relied upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able on merit as well as on point of limitation. The Department in the present appeal filed against the Order-in-Appeal has challenged only the findings of the Commissioner (A) holding the demand as not sustainable on merits and the Department has not challenged the findings recorded by the Commissioner (A) for holding the demand as barred by limitation. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of CCE vs. Spade Elektro (P) Ltd.: 2004 (175) ELT 319 (Tri.); CCE vs. Kumbhi Kasari S.S.K. Ltd.: 2011 (266) ELT 87 (Tri.); CCE vs. Echjay Forging Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (319) ELT 127 (Tri.) and CCE vs. Balkrishna Industries: 2006 (201) ELT 325 (SC) , wherein it has been repeatedly laid down that if the Commissioner (A) has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
