C.C.E. Raipur vs Shri Pramod Kumar, Dr For The

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. Commr/RPR/74-75/2006 dated 28.07.2006 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. .Respondent

Vs.

C.C.E. Raipur .Appellants

Appearance:

Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri Pramod Kumar, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 10.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52235-52236/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellants are in appeals against orders demanding 10% of the value of exempted goods in terms of provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. As both the appeals are having common issue therefore both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.

3. The facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturer of dutiable products namely iron and steel. They are also manufacturing exempted products like ammonium sulphate, crude coal tar, crude tar spillage, liquid nitrogen and medical grade oxygen. Appellants were using common inputs like lubricant oil, grease and water treatment chemicals and are not maintaining separate account in respect of inputs which were used in dutiable product as well as exempted product mentioned here in above. Therefore, demand of 10% of the value of exempted goods in terms of provision of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was confirmed against appellants. Aggrieved from the said orders appellants are before us.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that as per the provisions of section 68 of the Finance Act 2010 it is made clear that if an assessee has reversed Cenvat Credit on inputs attributable to manufacture of final exempted product along with interest, the assessee is not required to pay value of 5% / 10% of the exempted final product. He further submits that appellant has already reversed the same along with interest in compliance of the said amendment provisions, the appellant has complied with and consequent to that the adjudicating authority has passed the order holding that the reversal of Cenvat Credit is correct. Therefore, the formal order be passed for disposal of the appeal before this Tribunal.

5. Heard the Ld. Counsel and perused the records.

6. As the appellant has complied with the conditions of section 68-73 of the Finance Act 2010 and reversed Cenvat Credit along with interest attributable to the final exempted goods, the said reversal is sufficient and appellant is not required to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods.

7. In these terms, impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

E/3438, 2476/2006-EX(DB)