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 Overturns Duty Demand on Manufacturing Waste; Iron Fines & Coke Breeze Not Excisable Goods Per CENVAT Rules.</h1> <h3>M/s Tata Metaliks Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur</h3> M/s Tata Metaliks Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur - TMI Issues:Applicability of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on waste products generated during the manufacturing process.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original alleging that the appellant, engaged in manufacturing pig iron, generated waste products like iron fines and coke breeze before feeding raw materials into the blast furnace. The demand notice issued claimed duty payment on exempted goods, reducing the total demand after adjudication.2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant argued that iron fines and coke breeze are waste products, not subject to Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Cited judgments like Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar, and Hindalco Industries Ltd. to support the contention.3. Revenue's Stand: The Revenue supported the Commissioner's findings regarding the demand raised.4. Court's Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Rule 6(3) based on precedents and amendments in the Central Excise Act. The judgment highlighted the definition of excisable goods and manufacture post-amendment, emphasizing the need for the process to fall within the definition of manufacture for Rule 6 to apply.5. Legal Interpretation: The judgment clarified that waste products like bagasse, resulting from a process on raw material, do not fall under the definition of manufacture as per the amended Act. The Court emphasized that for excise duty to apply, the process must align with the definition of manufacture under the Act.6. Decision: Relying on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order, and granting consequential relief, if applicable, as per the law.7. Operative Portion: The final decision was pronounced in court, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
