2018 (2) TMI 1303

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Jain/Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri M.R. Sharma, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The present appeals are filed against the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Udaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Zinc/Lead etc. liable to central excise duty. They use Zinc Ore as the main raw mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....product attracting the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 and there is no need to pay a percentage of the value of the said goods. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their own case 2014(303) ELT 321 (SC). 2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is trying to distinguish on the fact of applicability of the said decision of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oduction of Sulphuric Acid. It is not possible for the appellant to maintain any separate account for such process. The Apex Court held that the provisions of Rule 57 CC, which are parallel to the present provisions of Rule 6(3), are not attracted in such situation. It was categorically held that the Sulphuric Acid, which has emerged as a technical necessity, which is a by-product, cannot attract ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... examining the applicability of the provisions of Rule 57 CC with reference to the payment of a percentage of amount on exempted goods. The ratio is clear and we do not find any difference in applying the same to the present case. 7. We also note that the impugned order recorded a spot verification report to examine the facts of the present dispute. The verification report categorically states ....