The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Essar Steels Ltd
- CitationAppeal No 26/2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer's by-product emerges in the course of manufacture of goods, the emergence of such iron ore chips does not itself involve a manufacturing process, and the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules are therefore not attracted to clearance of such chips without payment of duty; this is so as the issue stands concluded in the assessee's own case by the earlier Final Order rejecting the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 26/2009 (V-I) CE dated 27/02/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SHRI ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Division-III, 4th Floor, Srinivasa Plaza, Isukathota Junction VISAKHAPATNAM 530 017. Appellant(s)
Versus
M/s. ESSAR STEELS LTD (Previously known as M/s. Hygrade Pellets Ltd.) NEAR FLYOVER, SCINDIA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, AC (AR) For the Appellant
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Rungta For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 02/02/2015
Date of Decision: 02/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20207 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (A), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue and Mr. Nikhil Kumar Rungta for the respondents, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of iron ore pellets, during the process of which iron ore chips emerged, which are being cleared by the respondents without payment of duty. Revenue seeks to confirm 8% of the value of such iron ore chips cleared by the respondents without payment of duty, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
3. The Commissioner (A), by following the earlier orders of the Tribunal as also the fact that emergence of iron ore chips does not involve any manufacturing process held that the provisions of Rule 6 are not applicable.
4. I find that the issue is decided in the appellants own case when the appeal filed by the Revenue against the earlier order of Commissioner (A) in the same assessees case was rejected vide Final Order No.655/2009 dated 15.5.2009. As such by following the same, I reject the present appeal also.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free