TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ran, Member (Judicial) Shri A. Sarveswar Row, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Arun Kumar, Dy, Commissioner/AR for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-0006-15-16 dated 28.04.2015. 2. The relevant facts of the case is that appellant is imposed penalty under sections 14 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by Revenue and aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was filed by appellant before first appellate authority. The first appellate authority in the impugned order has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand with interest and also imposed penalties. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that clearances made by appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urchasers of the goods have also sought benefit of notification No. 82/84 which requires that purchasers follow the procedure of Chapter-X. In the case in hand, purchasers have procured certificate from jurisdictional Excise authorities and had forwarded the same to the appellant and based on such certificate goods were cleared without payment of duty. It is the case of Revenue that since Notification No. 82/84 talks about exemption from whole of the duty of excise by following the procedures of Chapter-X, the appellant is required to follow the rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which mandates for reversal of cenvat credit attributable to the exempted services for manufacturing of the goods cleared without payment of duty or pay an amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authority. But on appeal by the Revenue, the same was confirmed with equivalent amount of penalty following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported in 2007 (215) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.). Aggrieved from the same the appellant is before me. (7) I find that the main contention of the appellant is that provisions of Rule 6 are not applicable to their case as the product namely sulphuric acid is not a exempted product. The reliance placed by the appellant in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. reported in 2008 (88) R.L.T. 275 (CESTAT-Ahmd.) has clearly held that Sulphuric Acid cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 is not under exempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cture of exempted final products. It applies in cases where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as any other final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of the specified duty on any inputs, which is used in manufacture of both the above categories of final products . The Apex Court has held in that case the reversal of Cenvat credit of 10% under Rule 6 is applicable only and the cases where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as any other final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty but in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods cleared. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced paras that the issue was the same before the Bench and very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked. The Bench has held that the provisions of Rules are not attracted in case in hand where CT-3 certificate has been issued. It is to be noted that the above said decision of the Tribunal is upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai as reported at [2016 (338) ELT A38(Bom)] 7. In view of the fact that the issue now stands settled, I find that the impugned order con firming the demand raised is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Impugned order is set aside and appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
