Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd

[ Arising out of OIO-12-16/BVR/COMMR/2007 dtd 30.3.2007 Passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-BHAVNAGAR]

Commissioner of Central Excise-

BHAVNAGAR - Appellant(s)

Vs

Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri S R Dixit, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Alok Srivatava, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

1

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

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

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

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 20/4/2015

ORDER No. A/10663 / 2015 dated 20.04.2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Portland Cement and Clinkers. The demand of duty was raised on clinker used in the manufacture of cement, cleared by exemption Notification No 2 /2001 dtd 27.1.2001 for earthquake relief work. In the present case, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the payment of 8% of the total price of CEMENT under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules in respect of 3 Show Cause Notices and dropped the demand of duty on clinker on 2 Show Cause Notices. The Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that there is no clarity in the order that whether the proportionate credit was reversed or not. We find Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cements Ltd and Gujarat Sidhee Cements Ltd, Bhavnagar Vs CCE Bhavnagar, vide Final order No. A/573-574/AhhhhhhhhhhHD/2009 dtd 26.2.2009 remanded the matter for verification of the reversal of credit amount.

2. The Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the present impugned order is related to 5 show cause notices out of which 3 show cause notices are related to demand under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules and the other 2 show cause notices are related to demand of duty on clinker for captive consumption. He further submits that the Tribunal already decided against the 3 show cause notices against the appeal filed by the respondent and remanded the matter. He also submits that the adjudicating authority already dropped the demand in respect of the other 3 show cause notices as per the remand order of the Tribunal. At this stage, the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits 3 months period was not included in the earlier proceedings, which may be verified. Following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Saurashtra Cement Ltd (supra), we hold that the demand at the rate of 8% of the value of Cement cannot be sustained and remand the matter to the Commissioner for verification of the correctness of the reversal of credit amount. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami

3