TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (herein after referred as CCR, 2004). The department while scrutinizing the ER-1 returns of the appellants noticed that the appellants while manufacturing the above mentioned excisable goods are simultaneously engaged in generation of electricity which was captively used but some part thereof was also sold by them. Electricity was considered to be an exempted goods by the department and the department further observed that during the period from April' 14 to March' 15 the appellants have availed the Cenvat credit of duty paid on input and input services as that of GTA Coal, cargo handling service on Coal, Security Service, Repair & Maintenance service and Manpower Recruitment services. The coal was common input as was used also for generat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings of the Commissioner (Appeals) to that extent are also liable to be set aside. Learned (Counsel) has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DSM Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - I, reported as 2014 (304) ELT 582 (Tri.-Del). 2.1 Learned Counsel has further mentioned that 92% of electricity generated by them is being captively used in their sponge iron plant for manufacture of dutiable final products. It is balance 8% of the electricity that is wheeled out to state electricity company for the reason that electricity cannot be stored for future use. However, for the said 8% sale the appellants have suo moto reversed the Cenvat credit taken on the import and input services proportionately us....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as 2010 (260) ELT 499 (S.C.) learned Counsel has prayed for the order of Commissioner (appeals) to be set aside and the impugned appeal to be allowed. 3. While rebutting these submissions learned DR has stated that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is wrongly alleged to be non-speaking. Entire relevant provisions have been discussed in detail. Findings in Para 5.6 and 5.7 are the reasonable justification for upholding the order of confirmation of demand. The present case is rightly considered to be a clear cut case of suppression. Hence, there is no illegality while confirming the invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of the penalty. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has supported his decision drawing reliance on deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p etc. were not included for calculation of reversal of input services. 5. In light of these admitted facts foremost it is required to adjudicate as to whether the electricity is an exempted good to cover the case of the appellants within the scope of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. The law in this case has been settled. Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of Gularia Chini Mills Vs. Union of India reported as 2014 (34) STR 175 (All.) has held that: "Rule 6 of 2004 Rules will only apply where a manufacturer manufactures both the excisable dutiable final products and also manufactures excisable exempted goods. Furthermore, for the applicability of Rule 6, manufacture of dutiable goods and manufacture of exempted goods are condition precedent. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ure of exempted goods. For applicability of Rule 2, the following ingredients must exist:- (i) where a manufacturer avails Cenvat crdit on any input (as defined in Section 2(k) (ii) and manufactures such final products which are chargeable to duty and (iii) also manufactures such final products which are exempted goods. 28. Hence, manufacture is referred to both dutiable/excisable goods and exempted goods, which are final products. Only then, it is necessary for the manufacturer to maintain separate accounts. Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 6. In the present case, Cenvat credit has been taken on the inputs used, however, suo moto proportionately reversed for the electricity which has been sold out. Further, I observe t....