TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Clinker used for captive cement manufacturing exempt from central excise duty under N/N. 67/95-CE</h1> CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding central excise duty on clinker used for captive consumption in cement manufacturing. The appellant claimed ... Levy of central excise duty - clinker used for captive consumption by availing exemption under N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 for manufacturing of cement that was cleared against International competitive bidding by claiming exemption under Sr No. 336 of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT:- The identical issue in the appellant’s own case has been decided by this Tribunal consistently in two decision of this Tribunal reported as Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd [2018 (11) TMI 300 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. The only difference is that the said decisions were given with reference to the exemption Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 Sr. No. 19 which is pari materia to the exemption entry No. 336 Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, the issue is no longer res-integra. Conclusion - 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 order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe 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 ANALYSISRelevant 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 HOLDINGSPreserve 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
