Cce, Indore vs M/S Khaitan Agro

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/155/2006 dated 26/04/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Customs & Central Excise, Indore.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

CCE, Indore Appellant

Versus

M/s Khaitan Agro Respondent

Appearance

Shri S. Nanchuk, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR)  for the appellant.

None  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52873/2015 Dated : 14/09/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order dated 26/04/2006 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of Solvent Extracted Refined Soya Oil subjected to Central Excise duty. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent to recover 8% of the value of exempted goods manufactured and cleared by them during August 2003 to July, 2004 as they have not maintained separate accounts of inputs on which credit has been taken which are used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods. The Original Authority held that apart from manufacture of dutiable final product namely Refined Soya Oil, the respondent also manufacture exempted goods namely Acid Oil, Soya Distillate (fatty acid), Soya Gum. Since, they failed to maintain separate accounts regarding inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted items manufactured by them, he confirmed the recovery of 8% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6 (2) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the original order and allowed their appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is before us in appeal. In the appeal, it was submitted that the respondent did not maintain separate accounts which is in violation of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and hence the Original Authority is right in confirming the recovery of said amount.

2. The learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. We find in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the facts of the case and legal provision applicable comprehensively. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) clearly recorded that the show cause notice itself acknowledges that the entire Cenvat credit taken on inputs during the period August 2003 to July 2004 was paid back by the appellant on 7th August 2004 alongwith interest. This being the factual position as per record. He concluded that there was no need for issue of any show cause notice to recover the amount equal to 8% of value of exempted goods. He also observed that the exempted goods were actually by-products generated during the course of manufacture of refined oil and there was no need for reversal of any credit in view of supplementary instructions contained in CBEC Excise Manual readwith Board Circular dated 03/04/2000. In any case since the assessee has reversed the full amount, there is no question of any proceedings and confirmation of demand against the assessee. We find that there is nothing in Revenues appeal which can lead to a different inference. The appeal only states the provisions of Rule 6 to say that 8% of value of exempted goods is recoverable. We find nothing on record to interfere with the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) who examined the issue in detail and arrived at the decision, as discussed above. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objection filed by the respondent is also disposed of.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

4