TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g. Period of dispute is from November 2009 to August 2014. During the audit of the records, monthly ER-1 and other returns as well as other documents filed by the appellant, it was pointed out that Cenvat credit claimed on slag is inadmissible inasmuch as the said input, i.e. 'slag' is absolutely exempted in terms of exemption Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. It is the case of the department that in terms of section 5A(1A) manufacturers are barred to remove absolutely exempted goods on payment of duty and referring to the Board's Circular No.940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011. Show cause notice dated 01.12.2014 was issued for recovery of Cenvat credit alleged to have availed and utilized wrongly along with interest and for impositio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Similarly, this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Tube Investments of India Ltd. reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 363 (Tri.- Bang.) has held that once duty paid inputs received, Modvat credit cannot be denied on the grounds that such inputs were not liable for duty. If any action for wrong payment of duty is required to be taken, it should be at the place where duty was paid. In view of the said position we set aside demand on this count." (emphasis supplied) Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-I "4. After hearing learned Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of Revenue and going through the records including written submissions filed by the appellant, I find that the issue is no longer res integra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. At this stage learned AR submits that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras would not apply to the present case. According to Rule 3, a manufacturer/producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of duty of Excise specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act leviable under Central Excise Act. He submits that in respect of other duties also similar clauses have been incorporated in Rule 3 wherein the Schedule where the clause to be specified is mentioned. After introduction of Eight Digit Tariff in 2005, Ethyl Alcohol un-denatured (potable liquor) no longer figures in the Tariff at all. Therefore, during the relevant time Ethyl Alcohol (Ethanol) was not covered under any heading in the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etermine that aspect first and then take credit, the assessee is required to assess all the goods/services received which is definitely not contemplated by the statute. This aspect is considered along with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 9 provides that manufacturer has to maintain proper records for receipt, disposal, consumption and inventory of capital goods/inputs in which relevant information regarding the value, duty paid, Cenvat credit taken and utilised and the person from whom the inputs or capital goods have been purchased is recorded. It is to be noted even here, there is no mention of duty payable. The responsibility of the receiver of the inputs/capital goods is to ensure that duty has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it is difficult to imagine that legislature would require the assessee to determine whether duty is payable for all these items or not and then take credit. Even a jurisdictional Central Excise officer may not have all the items listed in the Schedule for assessment. In fact, assessment has been taken away even from the Central Excise officer. That being the case, the Board's Circular which has been issued without taking into consideration and considering the implications of the provisions and implications of the instructions on the assessees cannot be applied blindly to arrive at a conclusion against the assessee." In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal while dealing with the implication of Board's Circular dated 14.01.2011 held that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted." CCE & C Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. "5. By the order-in-original dated 30th October 2000, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad confirmed the demand of Rs. 13,08,701/- under Section 11A of the Act and imposed a penalty equivalent to the amount of duty under Section 11AC of the Act and also a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Recovery of interest under Section 11AB of the Act was also ordered. 6. Aggrieved by the above order-in-original, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by the impugned order. Revenue, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal. 7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that in fact there was no loss ....