Clinker used for captive cement manufacturing exempt from central excise duty under N/N. 67/95-CE

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding central excise duty on clinker used for captive consumption in cement manufacturing. The appellant claimed exemption under N/N. 67/95-CE for clinker used in cement cleared against international competitive bidding under Sr No. 336 of N/N. 12/2012-CE. The Tribunal relied on its previous consistent decisions in identical cases, noting that exemption notification 06/2006-CE Sr. No. 19 was pari materia to exemption entry No. 336 of notification 12/2012-CE. The issue was no longer res-integra. The appellant was entitled to exemption under notification 67/95-CE, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue in this case revolves around the demand for central excise duty on clinker used for captive consumption. The clinker is utilized in the manufacturing of cement, which is cleared against international competitive bidding, by claiming exemptions under specific notifications. The central question is whether the appellant is entitled to the exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995, in light of the exemptions claimed under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

The legal framework involves Notification No. 67/95-CE, which exempts certain goods used captively within a factory from excise duties. The proviso to this notification excludes inputs used in the manufacture of goods that are exempt from excise duty, unless they fall under specific exceptions. Additionally, Notification No. 12/2012-CE provides exemptions for goods cleared against international competitive bidding. The case references include decisions in Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd, Thermo Cables Ltd, Kei Industries Ltd, Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd, and Ultratech Cements Ltd.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Tribunal consistently held that the appellant is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE for clinker used in the manufacture of cement cleared against international competitive bidding. The court reasoned that the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-CE does not apply because the final product, although exempt from duty, is cleared under specific conditions that fall within the exceptions outlined in the notification.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The Tribunal relied on its previous decisions, including those in the appellant's own case, where similar facts and legal questions were considered. The evidence showed that the clinker was used as an intermediate product in the manufacture of cement, which was cleared against international competitive bidding.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Tribunal applied the legal provisions of Notification No. 67/95-CE and the relevant CENVAT Credit Rules to the facts of the case. It concluded that the appellant fulfilled the conditions for exemption, as the clinker was used captively and the final product was cleared under the stipulated exemptions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Tribunal considered the Revenue's position, which conceded that the issue was covered by previous decisions in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the consistency of its past rulings and the applicability of the legal framework to the current case.

Conclusions:

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE for clinker used in the manufacture of cement cleared against international competitive bidding. The impugned orders demanding excise duty were set aside.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:

"The appellant are entitled for the exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 for captive use of clinker in the manufacture of cement which is cleared against the International competitive bidding under Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006."

Core Principles Established:

The Tribunal established that the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-CE is applicable to inputs used captively in the manufacture of final products cleared against international competitive bidding, provided the conditions under the CENVAT Credit Rules are met.

Final Determinations on Each Issue:

The Tribunal determined that the appellant's case is not res-integra, given the consistent application of the legal framework in previous decisions. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---