TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion for refund to Large Taxpayer Unit (Mumbai) of Cenvat Credit reversed/paid for LPG under Rules 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 28.07.2016 on the following counts: i) Rules 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable to product LPG which is leviable to the Excise duty @8%, LPG is not exempted goods. ii) Whenever LPG is removed to PSU oil companies under Domestic LPG Subsidy Scheme End Use exemption duty is claimed. There is no prohibition in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 restricting availment of cenvat credit on input and input services when exemption is claimed under End Use notification at the time of removal of goods. The prohibition is only for the availment of credit both for input and input services for manufacture of exempted goods. iii) When on input and input services credit are availed for excisable goods as in the case of LPG there is no restriction in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for utilizing the credit thus availed. iv) In view of the above, they are not required to reverse the input and input services credit under Rule 6(3), 2004 for removing LPG under End use exemption notification to PSU oil companies under Domestic LPG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the manufacture of exempted goods and take cenvat credit only on the quantity of input and input services which were intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable final product. If the manufacturer opts not to maintain separate account the manufacturer is required to pay amount equal to 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared by him as provided under sub rule (3)(ii) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 following the procedure prescribed in subsequent provision of rule 6 (3A).He submits that there is no escape from this mandatory provision. He submits that the respondent has voluntarily opted for not to maintain separate account. Accordingly, they reversed the amount of cenvat credit in terms of rule 6(3) (ii) since may 2009. The refund claim were made by the respondent in respect of cenvat credit reversed/paid under Rule 6(3) of the CCR,2004 for the period from April 2016 to March 2017 on removal of LPG under Domestic LPG Scheme on inputs a well as input services is not maintainable. 2.1 He submits that the appellate authority has wrongly held that to apply of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there should be two different final products, one which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies- Civil Appeal No 5278-5282/2001 • Birla Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise- Civil Appeal No. 5118/2003 • M/s Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills Pvt Ltd Vs CCE -2006(196) ELT 159(Tri.Chennai) 2.3 Regarding reliance on Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court judgment in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited in the OIA he submits that in the case of Essar Oil the said judgment has already been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal. He submits that the facts of the Hindustan Zinc Limited case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. He submits that rule 57 ibid, had no provision which required reversal of modvat credit, taken in respect of the duty paid on the declared inputs which were to be, utilized in manufacturing of declared dutiable finished products and for by products generated during manufacture of final product. Whereas in the present case the LPG manufactured for supply to household domestic consumers under domestic LPG Subsidy Scheme is the final product and not a byproduct. There is no specific provision under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which is similar to Rule 57 D of the erstwhile modvat credit scheme. The respondents are well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puts and input services used in or in relation to manufacture of LPG (Domestic) which has been cleared by them by claiming/ availing benefit of exemption under Notification No. 04/2006- CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended vide Notification No 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 at Nil rate of duty of Excise. 2.8 He submits that the respondent have opted not to maintain separate accounts hence therefore opted to pay an amount equal to Cenvat Credit availed on input and inputs service used in or in relation to manufacture of LPG (Domestic) cleared without payment of duty under Rule 6(3)(ii). In view of the provision of Rule 2(d) and rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondents were required to reverse/pay an amount equal to the cenvat credit availed on the inputs and inputs services used in or in relation to manufacture of LPG (Domestic). Therefore, no merit in the refund claim filed by the respondents. He submits that in view of the above facts and statutory provisions the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and proper hence liable to be set aside. 2.9 In his written submission dated 09.08.2021 as regard liberty the additional submission filed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T A81(SC) • Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd - 2003 (160) ELT 928 (Tri.Del) • Prosafe International- 2020- TIOL-835- CESTAT- DEL 3. Shri Vishal Agarwal, Learned Advocate along with, Ms Dimple Gohil, Ms. Shilpa Balani, Shri Ramnath Prabhu, Advocates appeared on behalf of the respondents. 3.1 Shri Vishal Agarwal submits that Rule 6(1) provides that no Cenvat credit ought to be availed on inputs and inputs services used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Sub Rule (2) and (3) of Rule 6 are mere procedures/mechanism prescribed for ensuring compliance with the substantive requirement of sub-rule(1).He submits that in the process of refining crude oil to obtain value added finished products viz. Motor Spirit, HSD, ATF, Naphtha. The LPG necessarily arises and tapped from the crude distillation unit, coker unit, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit, Platformer Unit etc. It is relevant to note here that, it is not as if the respondent had set out to manufacture LPG. The same necessarily arises in the refining process and that the respondent could not have limited or curtailed the production of LPG nor could have manufactured other value added products using a lesser qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or manufacture of dutiable finished goods and accordingly, the requirement of separate account provided under Rule 6(2) stood satisfied and the entire credit was attributable to the manufacturer of dutiable finished goods only. 3.5 Without prejudice to the above submission it is further submitted that on the date of availing credit of Input and input services, there was no basis for presuming that any part of the same will be used in the manufacture of any exempted goods. He relied upon the judgment of Hindustan Zinc Ltd - 2008 (223) ELT 149 (Raj), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC) to submit that under Modvat/Cenvat Scheme the decisive date for assessee entitlement to credit is on receipt of the Input into the factory of the manufacturer and not determine basis on the date of finished product. In the present case also the entitlement of credit on the date it received the input and input services and not on date when finished goods are cleared on payment of duty therefore the requirement of maintenance of separate account has to be complied with or otherwise at the threshold when the goods are received and not at the later date. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Rule6 (3) of the CCR, the same becomes indefeasible in view of the above judgment. 3.8 Without prejudice , he further submits that Provision of Rule 6 (2) applies only where a manufacturer manufactures final product which is chargeable to duty and another which is exempt from payment of duty.In the instant case the LPG is dutiable , except when cleared to PSU oil marketing companies for distribution under PDS. This being the case, the requirement of Rule 6 (2) of there being a final product which is dutiable and another which is exempted is not satisfied. In this context he relied upon the judgment in the case of DCW Ltd- 2009 (234) ELT 163 and affirmed by the Madras High Court. He submits that in judgment of DCW Ltd has been followed several decision of Hon'ble tribunal including S U Motors Pvt Ltd vs CCE reported in 2017- TIOL-3087-CESTAT-Mum and Tanfac Industries Ltd - 2010 (262) ELT 1123 (T). 3.9 He also placed reliance in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd vs. CCE-2012 (276) ELT 214 (T) which was affirmed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is applicable in the present case. The Hon'ble tribunal held that demand under Rule 6 of the CCR is not applicable when services are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rves the Government's policy of relieving the cost of LPG from the incidence of excise duties. 3.12 Without prejudice he submits the notification No. 12/2012-CE by its very nature aims to benefit not the respondent manufacture but the particular end users of the product. In view of this there was no justification for invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004. Raising objections to submission made by the Learned AR for the appellant (revenue) during the course of hearing he submits that as regard the submission of Learned AR that rule 6 more particularly the heading, had under gone an amendment vide Notification No 3/2011 whereas the one reproduced by the Commissioner (Appeal) was the amendment taken place vide Notification No 23/2004. The heading of rule 6 of CCR read as "obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services" which was substituted as "Obligation of a manufacturer of dutiable or producer of final products". 3.13 The respondent submits that the 2011 amendment of Rule 6 which the learned DR relied upon in fact furthers the respondent's case. He submits that the respondent submissions urged by placi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne is excisable and another is exempted however, in case where goods manufactured are dutiable rule 6 (3) will not be applicable. He also submits that the judgment of Nicholas relied upon by the Learned AR is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case also. The judgment of Nicholas Priamal (India) Ltd - 2009 (244) ELT 321 (Bom) has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sterling Gelatin. 3.15 As regard the reliance of the Learned AR on the judgment of Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills vs. CCE -2006 (196) ELT 159 (T) it is inapplicable to the facts of the present case in as much as neither the provisions of Rule 6(2) CCR nor the argument that there have to be two different finished goods for Rule 6(2) to apply was either canvassed or considered. In the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd 2001 (130) ELT 93 (T) the facts were totally different as the assessee was manufacturing two different product viz "IMFL' which was non excisable and "Rectified Spirits' which are excisable products but cleared at nil rate of duty. The judgment of Amrit Paper 2006 (200) ELT 365 (SC) followed thereafter in the case of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd - 2015-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der PDS, it is exempted. 4.2 The case of the department is that since the LPG is one of the excisable products and cleared under exemption the respondent is required to maintain separate account in terms of Rule 6 (2) which is reproduced below: [(2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of CENVAT credit in respect of any inputs or input services and manufactures such final products or provides such output service which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted goods or services, then, the manufacturer or provider of output service shall maintain separate accounts for- (a) the receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs used- (i) in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods; (ii) in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final products excluding exempted goods; (iii) for the provision of exempted services; (iv) for the provision of output services excluding exempted services; and (b) the receipt and use of input services- (i) in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods and their clearance up to the place of removal; (ii) in or in relation....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nput services in the manufacture of dutiable goods i.e. motor sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel Oil, aviation Turbine fuel (ATF), Naphtha, Fuel oil etc. the LPG is generated as one of the product which also dutiable but under the said scheme of the Government i.e. PDS when it is decided to clear dutiable LPG under the PDS there is an exemption on excise duty. However, the main products which are dutiable are motor sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel Oil, aviation Turbine fuel (ATF), Naphtha, Fuel oil etc are the products only for the manufacture of the same entire input and input services are used therefore it cannot be said that any input or input service is used right from the beginning of the process in the manufacture of exclusively exempted goods therefore, Rule 6 (1) is not applicable. Consequently rule 6 (2) is also not applicable. 4.4 In the facts of present case it is undisputed that right from the crude petroleum oil the respondents intended to manufacture dutiable goods i.e. motor sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel Oil, aviation Turbine fuel (ATF), Naphtha, Fuel oil etc even LPG therefore, at the time of taking Cenvat Credit the input and input services are used in the manufacture o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be curtailed or reduced by applying rule 6 (1), 6 (2) and 6 (3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In this undisputed facts when the entire quantity of input and input services was required for manufacture of dutiable finished goods and when LPG emerged inevitably without any deliberate attempt to manufacture it, the provision of Rule 6 (1) was not violated in any manner. 4.6 The identical issue has been considered by the jurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sterling Gelatin reported in 2011 (270) ELT 200 (Guj.) wherein in the issue before the Hon'ble Court was that whether the assessee was required to pay an amount of 8%/10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CCR, as one of the inputs namely Hydrochloric acid was used in the manufacture of dutiable goods (Gelatin) as well as for manufacture of exempted goods Dicalcium Phosphate and the assessee was not maintaining separate account under rule 6(2) of CCR,2004. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court after examining the provision of Cenvat scheme and the argument that the assessee therein could not have manufactured Gelatin using a lesser quantity of Hydrochloric acid held that rule 6 (1) of the CCR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods from the common input to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs. Examining the applicability of the aforesaid rules to the facts of the present case, as noted hereinabove, it is not as if more quantity of Hydrochloric Acid is used than that required for manufacturing Gelatin or that by using a smaller amount of Hydrochloric Acid, the production of Mother Liquor could be averted. In the manufacturing process adopted by the assessee, it is not possible to manufacture Gelatin without Mother Liquor coming into existence. Thus, when the entire quantity of input viz. Hydrochloric Acid is used in the manufacture of the final product being Gelatin which is a dutiable product, the mere fact that a by-product emerges during the process would not bring the by-product within the ambit of Rule 6 of the Rules so as to call for maintaining separate accounts in respect of the same. When the entire quantity of input is used in the manufacture of Gelatin, the question of maintaining separate accounts or of paying a percentage of the total price of the exempted goods would not arise. In the peculiar facts of the present case, sub-rule (1) of Rule 6, itself wou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on input had been consciously used in the manufacture of two final products, whereas in the facts of the present case, the input Hydrochloric Acid is used for the manufacture of Gelatin alone, however during the course of manufacturing process a by-product viz. Mother liquor also emerges. 14. In the light of the view taken by the Court, it is immaterial as to whether or not the new applicable rules, viz., Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 contain any provisions akin to Rule 57CC and Rule 57D of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944." Applying the ratio the above judgment which directly applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in the aforesaid judgment the appellant intended to manufacture gelatin as the main product and exempted goods i.e. Dicalcium Phosphate generated unavoidably in the course of manufacture of gelatin same quantum of input and input services used for manufacture of gelatin. In the present case the entire quantity of input and input services was used for manufacture of dutiable products namely motor sprit (MS), High Speed Diesel Oil, aviation Turbine fuel (ATF), Naphtha, Fuel oil etc. only because of generation of LPG the quantum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that there was no way by which the respondent could have manufactured ethylene and propylene without producing ethane and methane. It is not as if by using a smaller quantity of raw material or other goods involved in the process, the respondent could have averted the emergence of ethane and methane. In other words, in the technology utilized for the manufacture of ethylene and propylene, the emergence of ethane and methane was inevitable. Hence, while it is no doubt correct to say that the ethylene and propylene have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of ethane and methane, the identical quantity of the same goods has simultaneously been used in the manufacture of ethylene and propylene. The emergence of ethane and methane is, therefore, by itself is not a ground to deny the benefit of the exemption notification. ........................ 30. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgments cited at the Bar. The Tribunal's finding that the ethylene and propylene used as refrigerant has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the same goods. The inevitable and automatic emergence of ethane and meth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacture. 3. The Notification No.201/79 dated 4-6-1979, mentioned hereinafter, exempted, according to the appellant, all excisable goods on which duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Tariff Item 68 had been used, from so much of the duty of excise as was equivalent to the duty of excise paid on the inputs. The appellants claimed set-off of duty on ethylene glycol used in the manufacture of polyester fibre under Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979. In response to the appellant's seeking set-off of the duty paid on ethylene glycol, they received a letter from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, dated 5th August, 1980 by which the Asstt. Collector held that no proforma credit was allowable in respect of ethylene glycol for the following :- (a) Methanol which is not excisable and is cleared without payment of duty; (b) Glycol residual waste which was being destroyed by the appellants by throwing in the field; and (c) Polyester fibre waste which was used in the recovery of DMT and exempt from payment of duty under Central Excise Notification dated 19-5-1976. The appellants were further direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of methanol but in the production of polyester fibre. That position is undisputed. Therefore, it appears that the Tribunal erred when it held that the appellants were not entitled to a part of the credit of duty since ethylene glycol when it interacts with DMT also gives rise to methanol. This construction would frustrate the object of exemption if something which evidently arises out of the interaction. Even prior to amendment to notification No. 201/79 with effect from 11-4-87, the only situation where the credit of the duty paid on the inputs could be denied was only where the final products were wholly exempt from the duty of excise or chargeable to nil rate of duty. In the present case, the excisable goods, namely, polyester fibre were not wholly exempt from duty nor chargeable to nil rate of duty. It cannot be read in the notification that the notification would not be available in case non-excisable goods arise during the course of manufacture. In fact, the Tribunal seems to have erred in not bearing in mind that exemption notification was pressed in service in respect of polyester fibre which is excisable goods and not in respect of methanol which arises as a by-product as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of availing credit on input and input services, there was no basis for presuming that any part of the same will be used in the manufacture of any exempted goods for the reason that at that time LPG was dutiable good only after the receipt Input and Input services and availment of credit, even upto manufacture of LPG it is not known that LPG is exempted goods, it is only at the time of clearance of goods on end use basis under PDS it is cleared under exemption. This gets support from the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd - 2008 (223) ELT 149 (Raj.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC) where in it was observed that under the Modvat/Cenvat Scheme the decisive date for assessee's entitlement to credit is on receipt of the Input into the factory of manufacturer and not deteremined based on the date of clearance of finished products. The relevant observation of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is as follows: "31. As on the date the inputs in question were received by the manufacturer and is commodity in the manufacture of which he was engaged to use, the provision of Rule 57CC were the zinc and le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct from duty or its liability to nil rate of duty must also exist on the date inputs became available for availing Modvat credit. 33. It can be seen from yet another angle. In case inputs are received in factory and used in manufacture of end product. But the end product is destroyed by fire before stage of its removal from factory premise. In such circumstances, no excise duty becomes payable on end product. Yet Modvat credit availed on inputs used in destroyed goods is not to be recalled. This is also suggestive of the fact the relevant date for considering exemption from duty of the end product in or in relation to which inputs are used is the date of its receipt in factory and condition is its actual use in or in relation to manufacture of end product by the manufacturer. The chargeability to duty or non-chargeability due to exemption or notified nil rate is to be considered at the stage before goods are actually produced, but on receipt of inputs intended to be used in manufacture of such goods. That being so ultimate clearance of goods at nil rate due to contingency existing at the time of removal does not affect the entitlement that legally arises long before that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct LPG is very much dutiable and the same became exempted subsequently only at the time of clearance of the goods. Therefore in this peculiar fact of the present case, once the cenvat credit was validly taken at the time of receipt, the same cannot be denied subsequently. 4.12 We further find that it is the contention of the department that the appellant is under obligation to maintain the separate account as provided under Rules 6(2) of CCR. In the present case taking into consideration the manufacturing process and use of input and input services therein the entire input and input services were used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, there is no intention to use the particular input and input services in a particular quantity is used for manufacture of LPG. Therefore, in this fact it is impossible to maintain separate account in respect of Input and input services received and used in the manufacture of LPG. It is settled law that when compliance of provisions is impossible the same cannot be insisted upon the assessee. Our view is supported by the judgments in the case of Goyal Proteins Ltd - 2015 (325) ELT 165 (Tri. Del) wherein the facts was that the assessee manufacture....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon input for purposes of Rule 57CC, we think, it is not necessary to address this question inasmuch as this case can be disposed of with reference to final products. Caustic Soda Flakes and Trichloroethylene were the final products of the respondents and both were excisable during the period of dispute. A major part of the production of either of these products was cleared on payment of duty. A small part was cleared without payment of duty to M/s. SC and M/s. BARC under Notification No. 10/97-C.E. dt. 1-3-97. For the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) to apply, there should be one final product which is dutiable and another final product which is exempted from payment of duty or chargeable to "Nil' rate of duty. Invariably, there must be two different final products. It is not open to the Revenue to say that a part of the quantity of Caustic Soda Flakes manufactured and removed from the factory during the period of dispute was one final product and the remaining quantity of the same final product was "another" final product. The requirements of Rule 57CC(1) were not met in this case, as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed." From t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t apply unless exemption from payment of duty was to the goods per se. 4.17 Without prejudice to our above independent finding, we find that the respondent have also made alternative submission that the LPG emerges during the course of manufacture other dutiable goods i.e. MS, HSD, ATF etc unavoidably, therefore the same is a by-product. Countering this submission in the written submission filed by Learned AR raised objection that firstly the submission was filed by the respondent belatedly as against the time given by the bench. Secondly the issue of LPG being a by-product is the matter of fact which was taken first time before this tribunal therefore the same should not be entertained. On this preliminary objection, we are of the view that even though the respondents filed by the submission belatedly but before the passing the order in the interest of principle of natural justice the same has to be considered by us before arriving to the conclusion. Therefore the objection on this point is not sustainable. As regards the objection that the issue of by-product is taken first time, we find that even before the Commissioner (Appeals) also the various judgments on the issue of byp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral excise Tariff but due to its nature of arising in the process the same is called by product. Therefore even though the LPG is excisable goods but emerging unavoidably in the course of manufacturing of other main product i.e. Ms, HSD and ATF, etc. the LPG is a by-product. 5. Despite our above finding as regard by product, on the issue that how the product can be constitute as a by-product, the Larger bench of this tribunal has considered in the case of Alkali Manufacture Association of India vs. Designated Authority, DGAD, MOF- 2016 (342) ELT 465(Tri.Del). The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced. "14. We have heard all the sides as above and perused the appeal records. We have also carefully examined the written submissions made by the parties. These appeals are considered afresh in line with the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 7-1-2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed for a fresh consideration of the status of chlorine emerging during the manufacture of caustic soda. This is relevant to arrive at correct methods of costing having direct bearing on the NIP and thereafter on the AD duty. The central point of dispute is whether or not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce and the producers do realise significant benefit by sale or partly by captive consumption in making derivatives chemicals. However, it is clear, based on the evidence placed before us that the integrated downstream manufacture resulting in economic consumption of substantial quantum of chlorine in the DI has not reached a level which will make chlorine a product of "Equal Economic Importance" to the producer. This is mainly due to constraint in full usage of chlorine captively in the vinyl chain and the difficulty in storing and transporting the said product. It is also linked to the demand and capacity to absorb the downstream products made by PVC, etc., in the domestic economy. We note that various major units in DI, as submitted by the ld. Counsel for the DI, have been selling substantial portion of chlorine, not consuming the same for value added downstream products. Considering the constraints in storage and transport and also lack of integrated capacity to use, the realization towards such sale only can be considered to fix the economic importance of chlorine. Based on the submissions made by the parties, admittedly, such realisation will not give chlorine the status of "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....• Hitech Carbon- 2018 (17) GSTL 398 (ALL.) • Nestle India Ltd - 2017 (349) ELT 171 • Garware Polyester Ltd - 2017 (6) GSTL 488 (Tri. Mum) • Sterling Biotech Ltd - Final Order No1189-1193/2009 dated 07.09.2009 • Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd - 2019 (368) ELT 276 (All) • Anil Products Ltd - 2017 (346) ELT 573 (Guj.) • N.S Ispat Pvt Ltd - 2016 (335) ELT 540 (Tri.Del) • JSW Steel Ltd- 2016 (332) ELT 189 (Tri. Mum) • Goyal Proteins Ltd 2015 (325) ELT 165 (Tri. Del) • Cadbury India Ltd - 015 (322) ELT 765 (Tri. Mum) • Advance Detergents Ltd - 2015 (322) ELT 508 (Mad.) • Aarti Drugs Ltd - 2009 (240) ELT A40 (Bom.) • Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd - 2008 (227) ELT 389 (Tri.Kol) • Hindustan Zinc Ltd - 2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC) • Nirma Ltd - 2012 (276) ELT 283 (tri.Ahd) • Bajaj Hindustan Ltd - 2012 (286) ELT 397 (Tri. Del) • Nirma Ltd - 2012 (81) ELT 654 (Guj.) 5.4 In view of the above judgments it is settled law that in case of byproduct Rule 6 has no application. We further find that the....