2018 (7) TMI 1585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nes and coal fines are required to be separated, which is an essential part of the process of manufacture of sponge iron. The appellant sold the separated iron ore fines and coal fines. A show cause notice dated 27.05.2009 was issued to the appellant proposing recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 6,68,448/- availed on GTA service for inward transportation of iron ore and coal as the iron ore fines and coal fines had not been used in the manufacture of the final product. The adjudication authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 6,68,448/- along with interest and  imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order to the extent that he set aside the penalty ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....which were used as input, the appellants had paid service tax on GTA services. Consequently, they had availed Cenvat credit on the amount of service tax paid on GTA service as the same satisfies the definition of input service prescribed under Section 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the course of manufacture of sponge iron, the said iron ore was subjected to the process of screening and after completion of the said process, iron ore fines were generated. It is the case of the Revenue that these iron ore fines were not used in the manufacture of their final product, namely, sponge iron, but were sold in the market. Therefore, since the iron ores were sold as such without being used in the manufacture of products, proportionately th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....credit taken on inputs or capital goods. It does not refer to the Cenvat on input service, whereas Rule 5, on which reliance is sought to be placed by the Revenue, specifically talks about the Cenvat credit on any input or input service used in the manufacture of final product. This rule pertains to refund in case of exports, which stands altogether on different footings. Once the rule-making authority has defined the terms specifically and used the same in different provisions consciously, the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue that merely by analogy even if in one provision both the terms have been used, the same should be read in the other provision as well, where it has not been specifically mentioned, has no legs to stand, as ....