TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Tariff Heading 2807 00 10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The above final product i.e. Sulphuric Acid is dutiable and generally on clearance of the said final product the Appellant is discharging central excise duty as applicable. The Appellant has also been clearing Sulphuric Acid to various manufacturers of fertilizers who are entitled to procure sulphuric acid duty-free by following the procedure prescribed under erstwhile Chapter X Procedure as contained in Central Excise Rules, 1944 which is replaced during 2001 in terms of procedure prescribed under the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. Thus, the Appellant has been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12 19/2015-16 dated 27.04.15 8,37,277 4,00,000 E/21570/2015 April 2011 to January 134/2012 dated 20/2015-16 dated 2012 31.07.12 27.04.15 E/21573/2015 June 2008 79/2012 dated 12.06.12 18/2015-16 dated 27.04.15 13,55,077 13,55,077 E/21923/2015 February 2012 to November 2012 55/2013 dated 29.10.13 78/2015-16 dated 04.08.15 3,88,348 97,000 E/21924/2015 January 2013 to March 2013 37/2014 dated 02.12.13 079/2015-16 dated 04.08.15 3,88,348 97,000 64,57,854 57,29,226 4. The Ld. Counsel for appellant Shri. N. Anand submitted that the sulphuric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout payment of duty. 6. I have heard both sides. The issue whether provisions contained in Rule 6 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable in cases when the sulphuric acid is cleared by appellant under chapter X procedure without payment of duty is no longer res integra. The issue has been analysed in various judgements and the same has been decided in favour of the assessee. 7. In Aureola Chemicals Ltd V/s. CCE, Indore [2004 (175) ELT 148 (Tri-De) the Tribunal held that the spent Sulphuric Acid cleared by assessee under Chapter X procedure to various manufacturers of fertilizers against CT-2 certificate without payment of duty are not exempted goods. The Tribunal in said case observed as under: 8. The appellants were c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dure are neither exempted goods nor said to be chargeable to Nil rate of duty as the recipient of the goods are duty bound to use these goods for specified purpose and, if, the goods are not used for specified purpose, goods are liable to duty. In this situation, the goods cleared under Chapter X Procedure cannot be said to be exempted from whole of the duty or are chargeable to Nil rate of duty. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. 8. In Hindustan Zinc Ltd V/s. UOI [2008 (223) ELT 149 (Raj)] the Honourable High Court of Rajasthan had occasion to consider whether the legality of the demand raised on the ground that appellant failed to maintain separate accounts in respect of goods cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of his product. Such date is date of receipt of inputs in the factory. 9. In the present case, the appellant cleared the goods without payment of duty not because the goods were per se exempted goods. Sulphuric acid is leviable to excise duty. Only on following the procedure under chapter X does the appellant be eligible to clear the goods without payment of duty. Thus the exemption from payment of duty is based upon fulfillment of conditions by the appellant or the buyer. Therefore at the time of manufacture the appellant cannot ascertain with full confidence that the end product is exempted from duty. The exemption being contingent upon conditions, it cannot be said to warrant a situation to maintain separate accounts. 10. The Co....