TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of certain inputs and inputs services during the process of manufacture Sulphuric Acid also comes into existence. The appellants were clearing such Sulphuric acid to manufacturers of fertilizers by availing benefit of Procedure Chapter X (Cleared at Nil Rate of Duty). Revenue is of the opinion that since common inputs and input services have been used for generation of Sulphuric Acid and appellant has not maintained separate records, the Appellant is liable to pay 5% on the value of clearances of Sulphuric Acid cleared under exemption Notification No 4/2006-CE 01.03.06 in terms of Rules 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rule. Identical issue was decided by the tribunal in the case of M/S NIRMA LTD. VERSUS CCE AHMEDABAD [ 2011 (4) TMI 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Excisable Goods)Rule 2001. The Appellant, during the material period, was engaged in the manufacture of dutiable product viz. Dichloro Nitro Benzene, Peptide Nuclei Acid, Ortho Nitro Chloro Benzene and Para Nitro Chloro Benzene. 2.1 Notices were issued for recovery of CENVAT under Rule 6(3)(b) and Rule 6(3)(i)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 by treating the removal of Spent Sulphuric Acid under Notification No.04/2006-CE dated 1st March,2006 as exempted goods. 2.2 The Adjudicating Authority while passing the OIO dated 14.2.13 did not accept the contention of the Appellant that the by-Products is removed at Nil rate of duty on receipt of Annexure-1 from fertilizer manufacturing units under Notification No. 4/2006 dated 1.3.2006. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.) 13) Rallies India Limited Vs Union of India 2009(233) E.L.T 301(Bombay High Court) 14) Sai Sulphonate (P) Ltd. v/s. CCE, Kolkata-III- 2017 (345) ELT 156(Tri. Kolkata) 3. Learned Authorized Representative relies on the Impugned Order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions, we find that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of Chemicals namely Dichloro Nitro Benzene, etc. The appellants are availing Cenvat Credit in respect of certain inputs and inputs services during the process of manufacture Sulphuric Acid also comes into existence. The appellants were clearing such Sulphuric acid to manufacturers of fertilizers by availing benefit of Procedure Chapter X (Cleared at Nil Rate of Duty). Revenue is of the opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara v. M/s. Nirma Ltd., being Order No. A/1810-1812/WZB/AHD/2010, dt. 15-7-10. For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant paragraph from the above order. 7. After hearing both the sides we find that the issue is no more res integra. Though Commissioner (Appeals) has held in favour of the assessee by observing that as spent sulphuric acid was being cleared by following the procedure under the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001, there is no requirement of payment of 10% of value of exempted goods at the time of clearance of the same. For the above proposition he has relied upon the Tribunal s decision in the case of CCE Indore v. S.R.F. Ltd. reported in 2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported at 2009 (92) RLT 839 (CESTATAhmd.). Considering the said decision, I dispense with the pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 35F of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. 7. However, while deciding the main appeal, the appellate authority has not followed the earlier order, but has observed as under : 8.4 Hon ble CESTAT Ahmedabad in Order No. A/2350/ WZB/AHD/2009, (M/384/WZB/AHD/2009), dt. 12-11-09, placed reliance on the decisions passed in the case of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI reported at 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.) and in the case of M/s. J.K. Malt Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad. I find that the ratio of Rallis India Ltd. was mispl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier decision of the Tribunal. However, he has observed that the Tribunal s order relied upon on Hon ble Mumbai High Court s judgment in the case of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. [2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.)], which was misplaced. However, we find that as contended by the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant, if the Revenue was aggrieved with the earlier order of the Tribunal, it was open for them to file an appeal thereagainst before higher appellate forum. The judicial discipline requires the lower authority to follow the declaration of law by higher appellate forum. Reference in this regard may be made to Hon ble Mumbai High Court s judgment in the case of CCE, Nasik v. M/s. Jain Vanguard Polybutlene Ltd. as reported in 2010 (256) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
