TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows CENVAT credit on iron ore waste, sets precedent for manufacturing process definition.</h1> <h3>Vikram Ispat Ltd. Versus CCE Raigad</h3> Vikram Ispat Ltd. Versus CCE Raigad - TMI Issues:1. Whether CENVAT credit taken on iron ore pellets procured by appellants, which were later segregated as waste, should be reversed.2. Whether the process of segregating iron ore pellets below 6 mm size before the manufacturing process constitutes a manufacturing process as per the Act.3. Whether the decision in the appellants' own case regarding iron ore fines being considered waste material applies to the current case.Analysis:1. The appeals were against the Order-in-Appeal dated 19.07.2007, where the revenue authorities contended that CENVAT credit taken on iron ore pellets later treated as waste should be reversed. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, stating that the iron ore pellets below 6 mm size, segregated before the manufacturing process, should not be considered a result of the manufacturing process. The appellants argued that a similar issue in their own case had been decided in their favor by the Tribunal previously.2. The Tribunal analyzed the previous decision in the appellants' own case, where it was held that the fines of size less than 3 mm were waste material arising during the manufacturing process, and the generation of fines was inevitable due to transportation. The Tribunal concluded that the manufacturing process started from the stage of screening, and since the fines were waste for the appellants and could not be used in their manufacturing process, the credit availed on such fines could not be denied. The Tribunal cited relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision.3. Referring to the findings in the previous case, the Tribunal upheld that the fines being waste material could not be equated with the clearance of inputs, and hence, the provision of Section 57AB could not be applied. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand. Based on the consistent findings in the previous case and the legal principles applied, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants.
TaxTMI 