TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id impugned order"). By the said impugned order the Commissioner has confirmed, as alleged irregularly availed Cenvat Credit, duty demand of Rs. 34,61,35,102/- and Rs. 14,75,60,088/- respectively under Rule 12/Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004( hereinafter referred to as the "Cenvat Credit Rules") read with the proviso to Section 11A(1)/11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), along with interest under Rule 12/Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11 AB of the Act. Equivalent amount of penalties of Rs. 34,61,35,102/- and Rs. 14,75,60,088/- have also been imposed upon the appellant under Rule15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act and Rules 15(1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and valid and hence there is no question of any disallowance/reversal /recovery of the credit stated to have taken wrongly as held in the impugned orders. It was also submitted that the orders have been passed by the Adjudicating Authority in complete disregard to the Central Excise Law and procedures and also the precedent decisions of the higher courts. 4. It has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. Advocate that the supplier M/s TSL has paid the duty on their own violation on the iron ore concentrates which is factually incorrect and patently illegal. It was submitted that the M/s TSH has paid the order as per the adjudication order passed by the Adjudicating Authority which was upheld by the ld. Commissioner (Appeal). The appellant choose no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eading 2601 11 50 and iron ore concentrate is classified separately under Chapter Heading No. 2601 20 00. In view of above, the finding in the impugned order is completely incorrect and inappropriate. 5. Ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that when the iron ore concentrate is supplied to the appellant on payment of duty, the respondent of such material by the appellant, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied on the plea that processes undertaken by supplier "in this case TSL" did not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and hence the some paid by the supplier in respect to subject input was not duty and thus ineligible to Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules. As such, further or not TSL had not, by process ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the respondent remove extraneous, unwanted material from the ore and as such is devoid of "guague" which adheres to the blasted ores. From this it has been claimed by the Revenue that the constituents of the final products are distinctly different from that of the blasted ore. The Revenue then applying the Explantion Notes of HSN has come to the conclusion that iron ore has become a new commodity known as iron ore concentrates" which is no more exempted from payment of duty as Notification No. 19/88-CE dated 1/3/88 has been rescinded by Notification No. 19/96-CE dated 23/7/1996. We find ourselves unable to agree with the Revenue that on account of the processes undertaken by the Respondents, a new and different article has emerged on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... physical chemical composition or characteristic." Similarly view were expressed in the case of Seth Liladhar Biyani & Sons vs. CCE Jaipur, 2001 (129) ELT 423)(T) relied upon by the learned advocate. In view of this we hold that the processes undertaken by the Respondents do not result in the manufacture of a different commercial commodity. Hence no Central Excise duty is leviable. Accordingly, all the appeals are rejected. 8. It was impressed upon by Ld. Sr. Counsel that Central Excise duty has been paid without authority of the law same cannot be availed as the Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rule of 2002 and 2004. He has also submitted that the order in case of Steel Authority of India(supra) has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y for manufacture of final product. Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rule also allow the appellant to utilise the said credit for the payment of Central Excise Duty in respect of dutiable final product manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the impugned period. Hence, we do not find any irregularity committed by the appellant in the instant case by availing of the Cenvat Credit and also the appellant has availed and utilised the Cenvat Credit as per the law . We also find that under Cenvat Credit Rules 7(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules. 2002 Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, requires the appellant to take all reasonable said ensure that the duty of excise on the input goods/capital goods, in respect of which cenvat credit is being ....