TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....excise duty at the rate of 1%/2%. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of Iron and Steel articles operating under the Cenvat Credit Scheme using steam coal as an input. Proceedings were initiated against the Appellant vide a Show-cause Notice dated 30 March 2016, inter alia, alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit on coal subject to CVD/excise duty of 1%/2% during the period 1 March 2011 to 29 February 2016 (the 'relevant period'). The Notice proceeds on the basis that if Cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty on coal cleared at the concessional rate of 1% under Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1 March 2011 as amended vide Notification No. 12/2011-CE dated 17 March 2012 was not available to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... excise notification but was being paid under a Customs notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act and consequently, the conditions of the excise notification had no relevance and could not be impliedly read into.Further, reference was also invited to the Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2015 of the Regional Advisory Committee of Hyderabad Zone wherein this particular issue of credit of CVD at the rate of 1%/2% was specifically addressed in favour of the assessee and the following decisions of different benches of the Tribunal. • Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. GST, Bhopal [2018 (363) ELT 1085 (Tri. - Del)] (para 5). • Jaypee Sidhi Cement Plant Vs. CCGST, Customs and Excise [2019 (369) ELT 1673] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of excise duty and the generally applied rate of CVD were not the same, save and except the period of 17 March 2012 to 28 February 2013. E. Substantial part of the demand is hit by the extended period of limitation. 3. Shri J.Chattopadhyay, learned Authorized Representative, appearing on behalf of the Respondent Revenue, on the other hand supports the findings in Order-in-Appeal. 4. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the crux of the issue before us relates to admissibility of Cenvatcredit of CVD on imported coal cleared at the rate of 1%/2% under Sl. No. 123 of the Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17 March 2012 as amended by Customs Notification No. 12/201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of Customs (CVD) in terms of Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, on the import of aforesaid coal, the said CVD was paid at the rate of 1% / 2% after availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. Vide the impugned show cause notice, the said benefit was denied. Accordingly, the recovery of Cenvat credit of 1% /2 % CVD paid on imported coal amounting to Rs. 5,59,54,730/- as was availed during the relevant period was proposed to be rejected and recovered along with the interest at the appropriate rate and appropriate penalty. The proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No.06/2018 dated 21.02.2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Amit Jain, learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. It is apparent from the order in challenge that Department has denied the payment of CVD on exempted rate and the availment of cenvat credit thereupon relying upon the S.No. 67 of Excise Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012. 7. Perusal of both these Notifications reveal that the Customs Notification is applicable to the imported coal whereas the Excise Notification is applicable to the domestically manufactured goods. The condition No. 25 of Excise Notification which denies availment of cenvat credit on imports of coal manufactured by the supplier of coal, as has been taken the basis in the Order-in-original, shall therefore be applicable for domestically manufactured goods only and not on the imported coal. Perusa....