2017 (7) TMI 1184

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri H.S. Patel, Badrinarayan and Yogendra Aldak, Advocates JUDGMENT per: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, C.J. (On Board)]. - This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is by the Revenue. Under challenge is a decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi [2017 (350) E.L.T. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edit on common input services/ inputs and not fulfilled the condition of Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by not maintaining the separate accounts for inputs and input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods viz. Coke Fines?" 4. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue, in support of the question of law framed at the stage of admission, argued that having regard to the clear ter....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacturing process of the respondent is elaborately described therein. Nonetheless, the Learned Commissioner had not at any point of time concluded that the coke fines themselves is a product intended by the manufacturer to be available as commodity for its commercial and trade dealings. In this context, the learned Tribunal can be taken to have adverted to and considered all the relevant fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... which are cleared from the factory without payment of excise duty following exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006." 7. The Learned Tribunal also noticed that coke fines are not the final product of the manufacturing process of the respondent and it could be treated only as byproduct, which is nothing but in the form of waste and so much so, the respondent is not liable to be v....