TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9.2024 CESTAT Ahmedabad • Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd- 2018 (11) TMI-300-CESTATAhmedabad • Thermo Cables Ltd - 2013 (292) ELT 412 • Kei Industries Ltd - 2-17 (357) ELT 1230 • Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd - 2017 (345) ELT 685 • Ultratech Cements Ltd - 2016 (343) ELT 164 Therefore, he requests that the appeal be allowed following the above judgments. 3. Shri R K Agarwal, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly concedes that the issue is covered by this Tribunal's decision in the appellant's own case. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the identical issue in the appellant's own case has been decided by this Tribunal consistently in two decision of this Tribunal reported as Shree Digvijay Cement Co Ltd- 2018 (11) TMI-300-CESTAT Ahmedabad and final order No. 12222-12227/2024 dated 26.09.2024. The only difference is that the said decisions were given with reference to the exemption Notification No. 06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 Sr. No. 19 which is pari materia to the exemption entry No. 336 Notification 12/2012-CE dated 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al duty of excise leviable thereon, which is specified in the Schedule to the said Special Importance Act: Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty, other than those goods which are cleared : - i. to a unit in a Special Economic Zone, or ii. to a hundred per cent Export Oriented Undertaking or iii. to a unit in an Electronic Hardware Technology Park, or iv. to a unit in a Software Technology Park, or v under notification No. 108/95-CE, dated the 28th August, 1995, or vi by a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted final products, after discharging the obligation prescribed in rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2001. Table Description of inputs Description of final products (1) (2) All goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), other Than light diesel oil, high speed diesel oil and motor spirit, commonly known as petrol All g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reads as follows:- (6) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the excisable goods removed without payment of duty are either (i)---------------------------------- (ii)--------------------------------- (iii)-------------------------------- (iv)-------------------------------- (v)-------------------------------- (vi)-------------------------------- (vii) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No.6/2002-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2002 or Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated the 1st March, 2006, as the case may be. From the above provision, it is clear that the appellant did not have any liability under sub-rule (2) to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and inputs meant for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch exempted final products as well as dutiable final products. In other words, where the manufacturer manufactures both dutiable and exempted final products and uses the inputs in question in the manufacture of the exempted final products, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by the opening portion of the proviso to the Notification as the manufacturer is squarely covered by the exception carved out of the proviso vide clause (vi) under the proviso. The Department, it appears, would like to drive the assessee out of the purview of this exception on the ground that the latter had not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Gredit Rules 2004 Wo have already held that the assessee did not have any liability under sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6 inasmuch as these sub-rules were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-CE ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i)--------------------------------- (iii)-------------------------------- (iv)-------------------------------- (v)-------------------------------- (vi)-------------------------------- (vi) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and supplied against International Competitive Bidding in terms of Notification No 6/2002-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2002 or Notification No. 6/2006 Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2006, as the case may be. From the above provision, it is clear that the appellant did not have any liability under sub-rule (2) to maintain separate accounts for receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products and inputs meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods, nor did the assessee have alternative liability under sub-rule (3) to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods. This is because their final products were cleared against i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts, he is entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment of duty on such inputs in terms of the opening paragraph of the Notification. This right is not hit by the opening portion of the provise to the Notification as the manufacturer is aquarely covered by the exception carved out of the proviso vide clause (vi) under the proviso. The Department, it appears, would like to drive the assessee out of the purview of this exception on the ground that the latter had not discharged the obligation prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We have already held that the assessee did not have any liability under sub-rules (1) to (4) of Rule 6 inasmuch as these sub-rules were not applicable, by virtue of sub-rule (6), to the assessee who were clearing their exempted final products against international competitive bidding in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. ibid. In other words, a conjoint reading of sub-rule (6) of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and clause (vi) under the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. ibid would show that the assessees claim for exemption from payment of duty on copper wire under the Notification was not hit by the opening portion of th....