TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of this Tribunal in the matter of CCE, RAIPUR VERSUS M/S. NUTAN ISPAT POWER LTD. [ 2016 (11) TMI 924 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in which also the issue was whether the Iron ore fines, which are not used by the assessee in further manufacture and cleared, will attract the provisions of Rule 3(5) ibid and the Tribunal while giving the finding in favour of the assessee therein, rejected the appeal of the revenue. In the instant case while explaining the procedure, learned counsel submits that during the manufacturing process of the sponge iron, iron ore fines are generated at the time of screening/grading and crushing, which is nothing but waste and in order to keep the production at a constant pace the aforesaid process of screening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and can be made for input services if the finished goods are received back. As in view of facts of this case, all the issues involved herein are decided in favour of the appellants therefore, the issue of extended period of limitation need not be addressed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51258 of 2022 (SM) - FINAL ORDER 50846/2022 - Dated:- 13-9-2022 - MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Mr. Jitin Singhal, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Gopi Raman, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal No. RPR-EXCUS-000-APPL-091-20-21 dated 22.3.2021 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST Central Excise, Raipu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of the finished goods. Accordingly a show cause notice dated 11.8.2016 was issued to the appellant to show as to why:- i) The CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs. 6,74,865/- (Rs. 6,39,681/- + Rs. 25,416/-+ 9,768/-) (Rupees six Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Five Only) should not be recovered from them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section of 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as to why the amount of Rs. 6,74,865/- already reversed by them should not be appropriated and adjusted against the said demand; ii) Interest at the appropriate rates should not be recovered from them under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ready with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es generated during the process of screening of coal by invoking Rule 3(5) ibid whereas the appellants have not purchased iron ore fines and no Cenvat credit has been taken by them on iron ore fines. So far as 266.420 MT less receipt of coal is concerned, learned counsel submits that few percentage of short receipt is normal as per industry practice. Learned counsel also raised the issue of invocation of extended period and submits that since all the transactions have been recorded in the statutory records/returns therefore extended period cannot be invoked. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf Revenue supported the findings recorded in the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of Appeal. 5. I have heard lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dly, the Iron Ore procured on payment of duty cannot be used as such. The same are put through a process of crushing to obtain a required level of Iron ore Concentrate. The respondent did obtain such concentrate and use the same for further manufacture. Such being the case, incidental emergence of iron Ore Fines, which cannot be put into the same use by the appellant, and accordingly cleared by them, for a consideration, will not attract the provisions of the said Rules. The inputs are put to use as intended by them. The emerging fines, which is nothing but a incidental product, cannot be equated to the inputs (Iron Ore) as such. Accordingly, we find no justification in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 6. In the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceipt cannot be treated as clandestine removal therefore there is no reason not to accept the submission/explanation given by the learned counsel. Therefore on this issue also demand cannot be sustained. Regarding the issue of wrongly availed Cenvat credit of Rs.9,768/- on input service paid on GTA service against sponge iron received back from the customers is concerned, this issue is also covered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Chitrakoot Steel Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai; 2008(10)STR 118 (Tri.-Chennai) in which it has been held that no demand can be made for input services if the finished goods are received back. As in view of facts of this case, all the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
