TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellate authority in the impugned order has rejected the contentions raised by the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand with interest and also imposed penalties. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that clearances made by appellant to the purchasers were under Notification No. 82/84 CE dated 31.03.1984, mandates for compliance of the procedures laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules 2001. It is his submission that they had already complied the said procedures and cleared the goods after receiving certificate from the purchasers and hence these products cleared by them cannot be considered as exempted goods. It is his submission that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ollowing the procedures of Chapter-X, the appellant is required to follow the rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which mandates for reversal of cenvat credit attributable to the exempted services for manufacturing of the goods cleared without payment of duty or pay an amount of 8% or 10% of the value of goods cleared under Notification No. 82/84. I find that Ld. Counsel was correct by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd (supra). I reproduce the relevant paras: "(3) The said sulphuric acid are also used for manufacturing of fertilizers and as a measure of relief to the fertilizer manufacturers, they are allowed to procure the said goods i.e. sulphuric acid under bond withou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reliance placed by the appellant in the case of CCE, Vapi v. Advance Surfactants India Ltd. reported in 2008 (88) R.L.T. 275 (CESTAT-Ahmd.) has clearly held that "Sulphuric Acid cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 is not under exempted goods and is not chargeable to nil rate of duty, 10% of the amount is not payable under Rule 6". In the case of Kesoram Rayon v. CCE, Kolkata-IV reported in 2007 (83) RLT 397 (CESTAT-Kol.) wherein the appellants took credit of input for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid, part of which was supplied under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty and the appellant did not maintain separate account and hence the department has demanded 8% of the value of sulphuric A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... credit of 10% under Rule 6 is applicable only and the cases where a manufacturer is engaged in the manufacture of any final product which is chargeable to duty as well as any other final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to nil rate of duty but in the instant case is not so as the final product is the sulphuric acid only and the same is dutiable product it is not a exempted product and the same was cleared to the manufacture of fertilizers under CT-3 Certificate/bond hence the facts of the Ballarpur Industries case are not applicable to this case, But the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in that case is squarely applicable to this case also. Further, I find that the ratio of the case of Aureola Chemicals Ltd. v.....