TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich cannot be said to be a manufacture of final product. Both the authorities have ignored the amendment introduced w.e.f. 01/04/2016 by addition of Rule 6(3AA) which permits the assessee to reverse / pay proportionate CENVAT credit relating to common input or attributable to input services and in the present case, the appellant is making use of this sub-rule and has paid the amount of ₹ 11,23,096/- along with applicable interest of ₹ 4,86,007/- vide various challans enclosed which according to me, satisfied the requirement of Rule 6(3A). Consequently, the demand of 6% of the value of electricity sold to the GESCOM is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20672/2019-SM - Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants have not taken CENVAT credit on inputs used in the generation of electricity. He further submitted that it is settled law that electricity is goods but not excisable goods and the ground made out in the show-cause notice and confirmed in the impugned order are not correct. He further submitted that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not a process of manufacture of coal ash or char. This issue stands settled by the judgment of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. [2003(158) ELT 3 (SC)]. He further submitted that the provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 are not applicable to waste products generated in the course of manufacture of dutiable final products. In the present case, heat, not goods, and char, a waste, are used in the boiler for generation of steam, which is used for generation of electricity and such use of waste products does not attract the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. UOI Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2014(303) ELT 321 (SC)] ii. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgeable to NIL rate of duty. She further submitted that payment of proportionate credit of input services attributable to the value of electricity sold during the relevant period was made after the issuance of the show-cause notice and the Order-in-Original. She also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC,CE ST, Tirupati Vs. Sri Sai Sindhu Industries Ltd. [2017(49) STR 84 (Tri. Hyd.)]. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period, this Tribunal vide its order No.21815-21818/2018 dt. 29/11/2018 has held that the appellants are not liable to pay 6% of the value of the electricity cleared by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
