TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat Credit, Interest, and Imposition of penalty. 2. Learned Counsel Pointed out that all the 5 Appeals involved common issue. The issue involved in the appeal is whether Rule 6 (3)(b) and Rule 6 (3)(i)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 will be applicable to the removal of byproducts (i.e spent sulphuric Acid) which are removed under serial No 32 of Notification No. 04/2006 -CE dated 1st March,2006 to fertilizer manufacturing units following the procedure laid down under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods)Rule 2001. The Appellant, during the material period, was engaged in the manufacture of dutiable product viz. Dichloro Nitro Benzene, Peptide Nuclei Acid, Ortho Nitro Chloro Ben....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....508 (Tri. Del.) 6) Commissioner v/s. SRF Ltd - 2010 (255) ELT A13(SC) 7) CCT, Guntur GST v/s. The Andhar Sugars Ltd.- 2018(5) TMI 862 CESTAT Hyderabad 8) ISMT Ltd. v/s. CCE, Pune - 2015 (329) ELT 919(Tri. Mumbai) 9) UOI v/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. -2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC) 10) A.R. Sulphonates Pvt Ltd. v/s. CCE, Thane-I -2016 (344) ELT 363 (Tri.Mumbai) 11) JSW Steel Ltd. v/s. CCE, Navi Mumbai -2016 (332) ELT 363 (Tri. Mumbai) 12) Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v/s CCE & ST, Surat-I-2016 (339) ELT 413 (Tri. Ahmd.) 13) Rallies India Limited Vs Union of India 2009(233) E.L.T 301(Bombay High Court) 14) Sai Sulphonate (P) Ltd. v/s. CCE, Kolkata-III- 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion No. 4/2006 - CE. 4.2 Learned Counsel has contended that the issue in the instant case is squarely covered decision cited by him. We find that identical issue was decided by the tribunal in the case of Nirma Limited - 2012(276) ELT 283. In the said decision tribunal has observed as under :- "5. We find that the issue is no res integra and stand settled by earlier order of the Tribunal in same appellant's case, being Order No. A/2350/WZB/ AHD/2009, dt. 12-11-09 [2010 (261) E.L.T. 635 (Tri. - Ahmd.)]. The said order was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. M/s. Nirma Ltd., being Order No. A/1810-1812/WZB/AHD/2010, dt. 15-7-10. For better appreciation, we reproduce relevant paragraph from the abo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional stay. For better appreciation, we reproduce Para 6 of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. "6. I have carefully gone through the case records, submissions made in the miscellaneous application, memorandum of appeals and record of personal hearing. I find that in the appellant's own unit situated at Mandali (Mehsana), the Hon'ble CESTAT Ahmedabad vide Order No. A/2350/ WZH/AHD/2009 (M/1384/WZB/AHD/2009), dt. 12-11-09, rejected the Revenue's appeal following the decision passed in the case of M/s. Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI reported at 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.) and in the case of M/s. J.K. Malt Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad reported at 2009 (92) RLT 839 (CESTATAhmd.). Considering the said decision, I dispense with the pre-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rks reported at 2002 (146) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.), has also held that Spent Sulphuric Acid is to be classified under Heading 28.07 of the Tariff item. Since the appellant is manufacturing exempted and dutiable Spent Sulphuric Acid, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall apply. I, therefore, differ from Hon'ble CESTAT's order No. A/2350/WZB/AHD/2009, dt. 12-11- 09 passed in appellant's own case as the ratio of above decision cannot be applied to the instant case." 8. As is clear from the above reproduced part of Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, he is not disputing the fact that the issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal. However, he has observed that the Tribunal's order relied upon on Hon'ble Mumbai High Court's judg....