2020 (2) TMI 290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Proposed Amt. of Recovery 1. 52562/2018 API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd. 19.04.2017 21.12.2017 03.05.2018 Rs. 28,27,650/- 2. 50213/2019 Shri Hare Krishna Sponge Iron Ltd. 07.04.2017 23.04.2018 19.11.2018 Rs. 6,04,256/- 2. The facts relevant for the adjudication are that the appellants M/s. Shri Hare Krishna Sponge & API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in manufacture of sponge iron. They are also engaged in generation of electricity and were availing the credit of cenvat credit paid on input service, inputs and capital goods in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter called CCR). While verifying the ER-1 Returns of the appellants for the period w.e.f. October, 2015 to February, 2017 & ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicating authority / Assistant Commissioner vide his order No.30 dated 23.04.2018 & Order No.70 dated 21.12.2017. The Department being aggrieved of the said decision filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the order under challenge i.e. 117-18-19 dated 03.05.2018 has set aside the said order of Assistant Commissioner, thereby confirming the proposed demand holding that iron ore fines in question are needed to be considered as exempted goods being sold for consideration during the relevant period as provided under the amended provisions of Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004. Being aggrieved, the assessee/appellant has filed the impugned appeal before these Tribunal. 4. I have heard Mr. Manish Saharan Ld. Advocate for the appellant an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able and exempted products or could avail cenvat on that quantity of inputs/input service, which are used in manufacture of the dutiable goods in accordance of Rue 6 (2) of CCR. Also in furtherance of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 3 further options were given to the manufacturer for one of those to be followed. Resultantly, the appellant was liable to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of exempted goods, as was rightly proposed vide the impugned show cause notice and the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error while confirming the said order. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the entire record of the preset appeal, I observe that the moot question to be adjudicated in these appea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....specified as amounting to manufacture. It is not the case of the respondent that sieving out of the finer input from coarser one will be a manufacturing activity. In the present case, the finer iron ore/ the input as inevitably generated in the process of segregation is admittedly not usable in the klin for the purpose of manufacture of the final product i.e. the sponge iron. However, it is still the part of the input. The iron ore fines are therefore, held not to be the excisable commodity. The findings of original adjudicating authority are found to be correct. The findings of impugned order under challenge being contradictory to this effect are held liable to be set aside. 9. Further, the Department has brought nothing on record to sh....