2012 (5) TMI 529

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act and availing benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs/capital goods used in the manufacture of final products. Appellants received MS pipes from M/s. Essar Steel Ltd. on account of Petron Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. who had given an order to the appellant for manufacture of MS pipes to be produced on job work basis for supply of the same to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. for the purpose of supply of drinking water. The said supply to Gujarat Water Infrastructure Ltd. was exempted from excise duty vide Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 as amended from time to time. The appellant took the Cenvat credit of the entire amount of the excise duty paid on such steel plates....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd. - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 321 (Bom.) will cover the issue in his favour. It is also his submission that the demand is entirely time-barred as they have given the declaration to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner before clearance of such final products in 2004 itself in support of which he produces the letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. 3. Ld. A.R. on the other hand would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the first appellate authority in para 5 of impugned order. It is his submission that the appellant has not produced any evidence or controverted the findings recorded by the first appellate authority.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isions of that rule." 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced Rule 6(1) that Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on the quantity of input which is used for the manufacture of exempted goods. The argument of the ld. counsel that they have not maintained separate accounts and as much as they have reversed an amount of the 8% of the value of the exempted goods will not hold any water inasmuch as that there is nothing on record to show that there was use of the H.R. Coils for dutiable products. An attempt was made by the ld. counsel to submit that they have cleared that MS scrap arising out of utilisation of such H.R. Coils was on payment of duty. By any stretch of imagination, scrap cannot be considered as manufactured product at le....