2024 (1) TMI 671

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was allowed is challenged by the Revenue in this appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee manufactures sponge iron and avails cenvat credit on the inputs and input services used in its manufacture. During the process of manufacture of sponge iron ore, iron fines emerge which are also sold by the respondent in the market. The case of the Revenue is that the iron ore fines are not excisable and no excise duty is paid on them. Therefore, the respondent was required to maintain separate records for manufacture of sponge iron and iron ore fines in terms of Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. Since the respondent failed to maintain separate records, it was required to deposit an amount equal to 6% of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntative asserts that in view of the above explanation, if no excise duty is payable on the iron ore fines and even if the iron ore fines were not excisable at all, Rule 6 applies and, accordingly, the respondent was required to maintain the separate records as per Rule 6(1) for the inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted/non-excisable goods. Since the respondent had failed to do so it was required under Rule 6(3) of CCR to pay 6% of the value of the iron ore fines. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the demand which needs to be confirmed. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the same issue had come up in the respondent's own case before this Tribunal for a different period in Excise Appeal n....