9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of Rs. 2,90,973/- being an amount of credit that was reversed in respect of fuel used for generation of steam which was cleared outside the factory. Steam is exempted from duty. The issue involves interpretation of provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. The respondents succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the Commissioner (Appeals) and the said order of the Commissioner is under challenge in the instant appeal from the Revenue. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On going through the show cause notice issued to the respondents, it is seen that, the refund claim filed by the respondents was proposed to be rejected on two grounds. The first ground was that the claim was filed on the basis of judgment of the Tribunal in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondents that the Rule 6 is identically worded with the provisions of Rule 57C(1) and 57CC, and being pari materia the interpretation in the case of M/s. Indore Steel & Irons Mills Ltd. (supra) should be applied in the instant case. 7. The respondents have also placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 161 (Tri. - Del.) and the decision in the case of CCE, Tirunelveli v. Sudarsanam Spinning Mills reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 461 (Tri. - Chennai), which reiterates the same position as held in the case of M/s. Indore Steel & Iron Ltd. (supra). 8. I find that in the aforesaid decisions, co-ordinates benches have taken view that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said judgments centred around the point as to whether in a situation of use of fuel in the manufacture of duty paid and exempted final products, a manufacturer is required to reverse the amount of 8% of the price of finished goods (exempted goods). It is obvious on referring to the provision of Rule 57C and 57CC and the cited judgments that there can be no question of demanding 8% amount even in the new rule viz. Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. 11. I note that, in this case, the appellants have admittedly reversed the credit of duty paid on 'fuel', which was used in generating a certain quantity of steam which was cleared outside the factory. It is nobody's case that the appellant's reversed 8% amount. The refund relates to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
