2008 (5) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted goods by using common inputs on which Cenvat credit has been taken, hence, liable to pay 8% or 10% of the value of exempted goods as per provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, on the clearance of exempted goods. 3. Contention of the appellants is that they are engaged in the manufacture of Refined Vegetable Oil through solvent extraction method. During the manufacture of final product De-oiled cake, gum and Hexon came into existence and they cleared without payment of duty. Contention is that demand is for the period 30th April, 2003 to 28 February, 2005. They received two show cause notices, show cause notice dated 21-9-2005 for demand for the period 30-4-2003 to 30-11-2004 alleging suppression, and second show caus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Salem, reported in 2007 (208) E.L.T. 25 (Tri.-LB) to submit that in case common inputs are used in the manufacture of excisable goods and exempted By-products, manufacturer is liable to pay 8% of value of By­product. In respect of contention of the appellants that they are ready to reverse the credit, Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paper v. C.C.E, Ludhiana, reported in 2006 (200) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) to submit that reversal of credit after clearance of goods will not help the case of the appellants. 5. We find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable and exempted goods and were taking credit in respect of common inputs. Two show cause notices were issued to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of duty and, thereafter, suo moto reversed the credit and filed refund claim in respect of duty paid on the ground that the goods are exempted from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2006. In such a situation Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the condition of notification was that exemption is available only in case when credit has not been taken in respect of duty paid on inputs the benefit of notification is not available. In the present case facts are different. In the present case the appellants submitted that they want to reverse whole of the credit availed on common inputs used in the manufacture of excisable as well as exempted goods. This situation is covered by the Tribunal judgment in the case of Maize Products (supra).....