TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter is a decided matter on merits, there is no need to go into the question of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/30725/2018 - A/30206/2019 - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. S. Vishnu Priya, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. P.V. Subba Rao 1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. TTD-EXCUS-000- APP-175-17-18, dated 28.03.2018. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pig iron from iron ore and avail CENVAT Credit under CCR 2004. The process of manufacture of pig iron involves breaking lumps of ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two tests which must be passed before a product gets charged to central excise duty are (a) manufacture and (b) marketability. As far as the products in question are concerned, there is no doubt that iron ore fines which emerge during the process of manufacture in their factory are marketable and are indeed sold. The second test is the process of manufacture. They have no intention to manufacture iron ore fines and they are not undertaking any process to manufacture fines. The fines only emerge as a by product during the process of manufacture of their final product namely sponge iron. Therefore, they cannot be held to have manufactured iron ore fine even though iron ore fines are specifically listed as an excisable product under Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they cannot be alleged to have suppressed or misstated any facts to invoke the extended period of limitation. On the same ground, they are also not liable to any penalty. She therefore prays that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authority and the first appellate authority. He submits that notification No. 6/2015-CE (NT), was issued on 01.03.2015, para 4 of which inserted an explanation to Rule 6(1) of the CCR 2004 as follows: Explanation-1 For the purpose of this rule, exempted goods or final products as defined in clauses (d) and (h) of Rule 2 shall include non-excisable goods cleared for a consideration from the factory . 5. Although the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant which are exempted by virtue of exemption notification and correspondingly whether an amount needs to be reversed under Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004. It is the case of the appellant that they are not manufacturing iron ore fines which only emerged during the process of manufacture of final product pig iron. It is the case of Revenue that manufacture of pig iron is a process which begins with breaking of iron ore lumps which results more than one product and therefore these are joint products of which pig iron is chargeable to excise duty while the second product iron ore fines are exempted by virtue of exemption notification. It is the case of the appellant that they are not manufacturing iron ore fines at all. I find that in identical matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
