2007 (11) TMI 623

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king after his mother. It appears from the said letter that there is no indication of period of adjournment and therefore I find that it is difficult to adjourn the matter for an indefinite period. Accordingly, I proceed to take up the appeal. There are two issues involved in this appeal. The first issue is that the respondents cleared Sulfuric Acid without payment of duty by following procedure prescribed under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 "(in short Rules 2001)" and the Revenue demanded payment of amount of 8% of the amount in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s were clearing the Spent Sulphuric Acid under Chapter X Procedure to various manufacturers of fertilizers against CT-2 Certificate. As per the provisions of Rule 192 of Chapter X Procedure of Central Excise Rules where the Central Government by Notification sanctioned the remission of difference in respect of excisable products used in a specified industrial process any person wishing to obtain remission of duty on such goods, shall make application to the Commissioner stating therein their requirements and purpose and the Commissioner on his satisfaction allowed the appellant to receive the goods on conditions without payment of duty. The obligation is on the receiver of such goods to use the same in a specified industrial process. In cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntral Excise Rules, 1944 was withdrawn in 2001 and the Rules 2001 was introduced. Hence, I find that the case of Aurela Chemicals Ltd., (supra) is applicable herein. The learned authorized representative (DR) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries which is not applicable herein. The said case relates to the expression in the notification i.e., "on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid". So, I find the first issue is in favour of the respondent and the order of Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard is upheld. 5. Now, the next issue relates to whether cenvat credit reversible in respect of common inputs used in generation of steam, which was further u....