TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dustrial valves, Gaskets, etc. and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services and utilizing the credit for payment of Central Excise duty. During the course of verification of accounts for the different periods, it was noticed that the appellant had manufactured and supplied control valves to Mega Power Projects without payment of Excise Duty under Notification No.6/2006- CE dt. 1.3.2006 as amended. During the manufacture of control valves three sub-assemblies namely (a) Body Assembly (b) Actuator Assembly and (c) Digital Valve Controller emerge . On perusal of the sales invoices, it was revealed that the said sub-assemblies are cleared as Plug/ Stem assembl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the same along with interest and for imposing penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner upheld the same. Hence the Appeal E/40485/2018. 3. Ld. Consultant Shri S. Adithya appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted by the Ld. Consultant that the excise duty is not payable on the intermediate goods as it is covered by clause (vi) of the proviso to Notification 67/95-CE read with clause (vi) of Rule 6 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the final product is supplied against the international competitive bidding. The relevant proviso to Notification 67/95 reads as under : "Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the exemption despite the final product being exempt. Appellant is covered under clause (vi) of proviso as they are a manufacturer of both dutiable and exempted final products who have discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of CCR 2004. 5. As per rule 6 (6) of CCR 2004 the obligation of reversing cenvat credit is not applicable in a case where goods ae being supplied against International Competitive Bidding. In the present case, the goods have been supplied against the international competitive bidding and hence there is no obligation under Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004. The appellant is covered under clause (vi) to the proviso under Notification 67/95-CE dt. 16.03.1995. Thus, there is no liability to pay duty on the intermediate products....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter of appeal E/42081/2016 March 2013 and April-May 2013 (OIO dt. 30.4.2015). Duty along with penalty paid by the appellant pursuant to this order was Rs.39,85,735/-. Duty having been paid on intermediate goods, the appellant was eligible to avail credit and the same has been denied only for the reason that the extended period has been invoked. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case has held that duty is not payable on intermediate products. On such score as the duty has been paid, the appellant would be eligible for the credit. He prayed that the appeals may be allowed. 8. Ld. A.R Sri Harendra Singh Pal supported the findings in the impugned orders. 9. Heard both sides. 10. The first issue to be decided is whether the appellant is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975 (5) and the additional duty leviable under sub-section (1) o f section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and are supplied,- (a) against International Competitive Bidding; or (b) to a power project from which power supply has been tied up through tariff based competitive bidding; or (c) to a power project awarded to a developer through tariff based competitive bidding, in terms of notification No.6/2006-Central Excise, dated the 1st March 2006." 11. The very same issue was decided in the appellant's own case. The Tribunal after following the decision in the Bharat Aluminium (supra), the decision in Thermax Cables (supra) as well as the decision in Kei Industries (supra) held that duty ....