TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it appellant was manufacturing only exempted product. 2. The brief facts put forward by appellant are as under: a) The appellants are the manufacturers of the Final products Maize Starch falling under chapter sub-heading No. 1108.12.00, Yellow Dextrine falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3505 10 90 and Thin Boiled Starch falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 3505 10 90. b) Appellants started Manufacturing activity in the month of November 2005 and took Central Excise registration in the Month of November 2005 itself. During the first stage of manufacture appellants manufactured the final product Maize Starch which is exempted from payment of duty vide Notification No. 03/2006 CE dated 01.03.2006 (General Exemption No. 65). Appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used by the manufacturer for exempted goods only and the availment of Credit was in contravention of sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. g) Appellant availed second 50% CENVAT Credit on the capital goods in the subsequent Financial Year and the Second Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant on the same ground and the total credit disallowed in the said notice was Rs. 15,02,742/-. h) The adjudicating authorities allowed the CENVAT Credit on capital goods received after February 2006 the date of which dutiable goods were cleared on payment of duty and disallowed the Credit on the capital goods which are received prior to the date of February 2006. The adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority while doi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the dutiable final products in the month of February 2006 (2 months gap). Again, appellant utilized their final exempted product viz; Maize Starch for the manufacture of dutiable product of Yellow Dextrine and Thin Boiled Starch. This fact has not been refuted by the revenue. The department ought to have considered the fact that without manufacturing the Maize Starch, the dutiable products would not emerge and in such a situation it cannot be concluded that the capital goods were used exclusively in manufacture of exempted product of Maize Starch. The judgment on which the adjudicating authority as well appellate authority relied on, M/s Surya Roshini case is distinguishable on the facts. That the said decision deals with admissibility of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules 2002 the Board may by notification and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such notification, specify person or class of persons who may not require such registration. The notification for this purpose issued is 36/2001 (CE) (NT) dated 26.06.2001 and as per this notification, the persons who manufacture the goods specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which are chargeable to NIL rate of duty are exempted from the operation of Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules. In this context she submitted before that if the appellant having intention to only manufacture the exempted goods viz Maize Starch, they would not have at all registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Starch glucose, gluten, germs and Fiber emerges and these products are listed in MOA in technical terms as detailed above and the Starch glucose further classified into Yellow Dextrin, Thin boiling and maize starch. From the above MOA it is also very clear that the company has been incorporated for the purpose of manufacture of so many products and not to manufacture only Maize Starch. Further she submitted that this Maize starch is the raw material for manufacture of Dutiable products of both Yellow Dextrin and Thin Boiling starch and that was the same stated in reply to the Show Cause Notices and that Revenue has not disputed this fact. 7. The Ld. AR Sh. P.S. Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that at th....