2015 (10) TMI 1680

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner for re-quantification as held by my learned brother Member (T) or the impugned order is required to be set aside in its totality and the appeal is required to be fully allowed as held by learned Member (J). 19. The facts are not in dispute. Therefore, same are not repeated here. But for consideration of the issue, I find that issue in dispute is that department is of the view that the appellant is manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted goods. Therefore, 5% / 10% of the sale value of the exempted final product is required to be paid by the appellant as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. 20. In fact, the appellant is a manufacturer of dutiable as well as exempted final product. On the final ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... price at which the goods is sold to the Customer which is different from the assessable value of the goods. 24. To understand the same I have to explain the same by way of an example. 25. Suppose, if the value of input is Rs. 50/-, cost of manufacturing of the product is Rs. 50/- and the rate of duty is 10%. If appellant is manufacturing only dutiable goods then the input value is Rs. 50/- (Credit availed on input) plus the cost of production is also Rs. 50/- therefore, the value of the goods is Rs. 100/- on which duty is payable at 10%, the sale price of the goods is Rs. 110/-. 26. If the appellant is manufacturing exempted final product then also value of input is Rs. 50/- (Cenvat Credit availed on input) plus cost of production....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sale price of goods as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Further, case laws relied upon by the ld. AR are not applicable to the facts of this case as in the case of Muktanandan Pipes Ltd. Vs. CCE Ahmedabad-2014 (312) 735 (Th-Amd) the appellant sought deduction of 8% from the value of the goods which is not permissible. Same facts were in the case of Mukand Ltd. Vs. CCE Belapur-2010 (252) ELT 75 (Th-Mum) and in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai-2007 (211) ELT 481 (Tri-Mumbai). Therefore, the said case laws are not relevant to the facts of this case. 29. In this case, the appellant is paying 5% / 10% of the value of the goods to the Revenue as per Rule 6(3) and not claiming any deduction of 5% / 10% on the s....