9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 08.05.2018 Rs.11,10,985/- 2. The facts relevant for the adjudication are that the appellants M/s. Bhagwati Steel & Power Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of sponge iron. They are also engaged in generation of electricity and were availing the credit of cenvat credit paid on input service, inputs and capital goods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter called CCR). While verifying the ER-1 Returns of the appellants for the period w.e.f. July, 2016 to May, 2017, the Department observed that the appellants have discharged their duty liability on their final product i.e. sponge iron and billet, but their returns had no mention of any amount of duty paid on iron ore fines manufactured and removed during the said period. 3. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner, thereby confirming the proposed demand holding that iron ore fines in question are needed to be considered as exempted goods being sold for consideration during the relevant period as provided under the amended provisions of Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004. Being aggrieved, the assessee/,appellant has filed the impugned appeal before these Tribunal. 4. I have heard Mr. Manish Saharan Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Ms. Tamanna Alam, ld. D.R. for the Department. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the iron ore fines since were not obtained by undertaking any such process, which may amount to manufacture under Rule 2 (f) of the Central Excise Rules, the fines cannot be called as excisable goods. There is no Notification whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of exempted goods, as was rightly proposed vide the impugned show cause notice and the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while confirming the said order. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record of the preset appeal, I observe that the moot question to be adjudicated in these appeals is: Whether the iron ore fines as cleared by the appellants can be considered as a separate excisable but exempted commodity. 8. For the purpose, it is foremost important to understand the admitted procedure for the activity of the appellant, not only from the show cause notice, but from the appellant's submission. The admitted proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the final product i.e. the sponge iron. However, it is still the part of the input. The iron ore fines are therefore, held not to be the excisable commodity. The findings of original adjudicating authority are found to be correct. The findings of impugned order under challenge being contradictory to this effect are held liable to be set aside. 9. Further, the Department has brought nothing on record to show that the iron ore fines can be considered as exempted goods. Apparently and admittedly, there is no Notification of the Revenue granting exemption to this product. Thus, I am of the opinion that embargo created in Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR will not apply for removal of iron ore fines from the appellant's factory. Confirmation of demand b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
