2014 (1) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For the Appellant: Mr. B.G. Chidanand Urs, CA For the Respondent: Mr. A.K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P. G. Chacko; This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of an amount of Rs.7,01,116/- demanded from them in terms of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period from May 2008 to February 2010 and equal amount of penalty....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....In the absence of such separate accounts, according to the Revenue, the appellant should have paid 10% of the sale value (excluding taxes) of un-granulated slag cleared during the aforesaid period. This is the basis of the present demand. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that they did not intentionally manufacture un-granulated slag which was generated as a waste in the course of manu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cturers for whom it was an essential input for manufacturing cement. Further, un-granulated slag is clearly classifiable under heading 2619 00 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule attracting 'nil' rate of duty. In this scenario, it is argued that un-granulated slag generated by the appellant during the aforesaid period and sold at high price to cement manufacturers has to be considered as an e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le (3). Prima facie, therefore, for the application of Rule 6 (3) to a given case, a manufacturer should be shown to have manufactured both dutiable and exempted final products without maintaining separate accounts as above. We find it difficult, at this stage, to hold that the appellant manufactured un-granulated slag. The citations given by the learned counsel seems to support the appellant's ca....