2018 (12) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers-in-Original. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical and there is common impugned order, all the four appeals are disposed of by this common order. The details of the four appeals are given herein below. Appeal No. Period Demand under Rule 6 (3)(1) Penalty E/21033/2018 April 2010 to March 2013 Rs.40,31,815/- Rs.40,31,815/- E/21035/2018 April 2013 to February 2014 Rs.16,47,439/- Rs.1,64,743/- E/21034/2018 March 2014 to December 2014 Rs.19,75,560/- Rs.1,97,556/- E/21036/2018 January 2015 to February 2015 Rs.2,79,074/- Rs.27,907/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are manufacturers of sponge iron and MS billets falling under Chapter 72 of the CETA, 1985. In the cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dutiable goods, the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to 5% of the value of electricity sold. The appellant submitted the reply vide letter dt. 10/09/2012 contending that electricity as not excisable goods and hence not exempted goods and consequently Rule 6 was not attracted. Thereafter the Revenue issued first show-cause notice on 26/07/2013 alleging that the electricity was exempted goods and in terms of Rule 6(2) of the CCR, 2004, assessee was required to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs and input services in terms of Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. But they have not maintained separate accounts and therefore they are required to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of electricity sold to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ture of exempted goods and consequently the provisions of Rule 6(1), (2) & (3) of CCR 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case. For this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE Vs. solaris Chemtech Ltd. [2007(214) ELT 481 (SC)] ii. Arvind Mills Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2007(220) ELT 981 (Tri. Ahmd-)] iii. Gularia Chini Mills Vs. UOI [2014(34) STR 175 (All.)] iv. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Meerut-I [2015(329) ELT 295 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2. He further submitted that the CBEC vide Instruction F.No.17/01/2012-CX-I dt. 23/12/2013 has examined the legal provisions and has opined that for a manufacturer such provision does not exist in Rule 6. Any raw material consumables or services which are used in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....[2015(325) ELT 632 (SC)] ii. CC, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. [2006(201) ELT 513 (SC)] iii. CCE&C, Surat Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. [2015(326) ELT 3 (SC)] iv. Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur [1999(106) ELT 12 (SC)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants are required to reverse the proportionate CENVAT credit availed on common input services which were used for manufacture of electricity which is exempted goods. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that electricity, though listed in the Tariff, but is not excisable goods. Further I find that electricity is not an exempted goods and there ....