TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upplies were made claiming exemption notification 10/97-CE, they are required to pay 8%/ 10% of the total price in terms of Rule 6(3) (a)/Rule 57 AD. Accordingly, demand of such amount was raised in the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority applying Rule 6(3)(a) confirmed the demand equal to 8%/ 10% value of exempted goods cleared under notification No.10/97-CE and Notification No.3/2004CE. Being aggrieved by the order-in-Original appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who concurring with the views taken by Original adjudicating authority upholding the Order-in-Original rejected appeal, therefore present appeal. 2. Shri. S.G. Dharmadhikari, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per provision of Rule 57CC/ 5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2015(327) ELT 605(Tri. Del)] (h) Cambay Organics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C Ex. Vodadara[2007(217) ELT 586(Tri. Ahmd.)] (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Binny Ltd[2003(151) ELT 106(Tri. Chennai)] (j) Kapoor Lamp Shade Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-IV[2015(319) ELT 170(Tri. Del)] (k) Commissioner of C. Ex. Faridabad-II Vs. Kapoor Lamp Shade Co. [2016(337) ELT 14(P&H)] 3. On the other hand, Shri. Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Superintendent(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that at the time of receipt of input and manufacture of the goods, it was known to the appellant that the input is going to be used in the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions, we have found valid reason to sustain the impugned order. Though, in their cross-objections, the party has pleaded that none of the inputs specified in the SCN and the Order-in-Original can be considered to be a common input for purposes of Rule 57CC, we think, it is not necessary to address this question inasmuch as this case can be disposed of with reference to final products, Caustic Soda Flakes and Trichloroethylene were the final products of the respondents and both were excisable during the period of dispute. A major part of the production of either of these products was cleared on payment of duty. A small part was cleared without payment of duty to M/s. SC and M/s. BARC under Notification No.10/97-C.E. dt. 1-3-97. For the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to "Nil" rate of duty. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not open to the Revenue to say that a part of the quantity of caustic soda flakes manufactured and removed from the factory, during the period in dispute, was one final product and the remaining quantity of the same final product was another final product for the purpose of levying excise duty. 4. Accordingly, we see no merit in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same is dismissed. Similarly, dealing with exempted goods under Notification No.10/97-CE in case of Tanfac Industries Ltd(supra), the tribunal relying on the earlier decision of this Tribunal DCW Ltd(Supra) and Greaves Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as in any other final product which is exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty and the manufacturer takes credit of these specified duty on any inputs (other than inputs used as fuel) which is used or ordinarily used in or in relation to the manufacture of both the aforesaid categories of final products whether directly or indirectly or and whether contained in the said final products or not, the manufacturer shall, unless the provisions of sub-rule 9 are complied with, pay an amount equal to 8 per cent of the price (excluding sales tax and other taxes if any, payable on suc....