AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 9­3­2016. 2. After hearing both sides and perusing this order, we are of the opinion that the appeal raises the following two substantial questions of law:­ "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the Appellants have correctly reversed cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6(3)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 inspite of the fact that the Appellants had never opted for any option provided in the rule and followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 6(3)(ii) read with Rule 6(3)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lcohol manufactured is either captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable goods or sold as such in the domestic market. This is classifiable under CSH 2207 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is exempted from payment of excise duty. 7. The appellants have specifically urged that they followed the procedure laid down under the erstwhile Rule 6(3)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As per this Rule, a manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter Heading 2207 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 was required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Bearing in mind the nature of the operation and the manufacturing pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut, Railway Station Nira, Taluka Baramati, District Pune­412 102, is engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals using molasses as input. The molasses is used as a raw material for manufacture of rectified spirit (RS) which is further used in manufacturer of final products and also sold in the open market. Similarly, the RS manufactured using molasses is also used for manufacture of Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) with faint spirit emerging as by­product. The faint spirit is further used for manufacture of final products whereas ENA is sold in the market as well as used for further manufacture of non excisable goods in another unit of the Company. ENA and RS are exempted goods as defined in Rule 2(d) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of credit taken on molasses as per Rule 6(3)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, then prevailing. 11. That is how the principle of unjust enrichment is inapplicable. 12. The order­in­original passed on 16­7­2010 confirmed this Show Cause Notice. The finding in that order­in­original is specific and the Assistant Commissioner holds that as per Rule (3A) of the CCR, 2004, if the assessee opts to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT attributable to input, they should intimate to the Range Superintendent, in writing, the description of the dutiable as well as exempted goods, CENVAT credit of the input lying in the balance as on the date of exercising the option. The Assistant Commissioner found that at the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Appellate Authority in para 3 of its order and the submission in para 4. The point framed for determination was rejection of the refund claim in respect of excess CENVAT credit reversed by the assessee on the exempted goods cleared by the assessee. That is rejected on the ground that they have to discharge the duty liability under Rule 6(3)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the same was credited as per law. The very fact that this credit was reversed, is an option exercised ipso facto. Hence, the reversal was correct. The question of excess duty having been reversed does not arise. The Adjudicating Authority does not have to produce any evidence. Relying upon Explanation­1 to Rule 6(3), the order of the Adjudicating Autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....To our mind, such an argument of the assessee and based on this ground was specifically raised, as noted in para 3 of the order under challenge. The CESTAT notes the arguments of the assessee's Advocate as also that of the respondent's representative. 19. It renders a finding in para 6 on running pages 37 & 38, entirely agreeing with the Commissioner (Appeals) and reproducing the finding from the Appellate Authority's order and endorsing its reliance on Explanation­1 to Rule 6(3). We have not seen any independent application of mind by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was expected, as the last fact finding authority, to render specific finding. We do not think that the case could have been disposed of even if the revenue involv....