TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 555
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of their manufacture, some other exempted goods like Ammonium Sulphate, Coal Tar, Burnt Dolomite and Molten Slag emerge. On the ground that the Appellant has not maintained separate Modvat/Cenvat Account in respect of the exempted goods, 11 Show Cause Notices were issued during the period 01.09.1996 to 30.09.2004 seeking payment of duty @ 5%/6%/8% of the value of exempted goods cleared. After due process, the Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand vide Order-in-Original dated 10.05.2005. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed their Appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.S-1099/A-680/KOL/06 dated 03.07.2006 remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority. One more Show Cause Notice for the period 01.10.2004....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 noted that retrospective amendment was carried out. Accordingly the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority. The Adjudicating authority has taken up the matter for de novo adjudication, but vide the impugned order, has held that the proportionate reversal of credit cannot be considered at the stage of de novo adjudication. He confirmed the entire demand for the period 01.09.1996 to 31.03.1999. He also adjudicated in respect of one more Show Cause Notice issued on 21.11.2013 and confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal for the third time. 3. The Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Tribunal vide its Order dated 31.12.2010 has clearly noted that amendments have been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Considering the fact that the assesses were fastened with huge demands, an amendment was brought in with retrospective effect in 2010 to enable the assesses to reverse the Cenvat credit on proportionate basis along with interest. In the present case we find that the Appellant who is a reputed Public Sector Undertaking has followed the directions and has reversed Rs.21,88,437/- for the period April 1996 to March 2008 and Rs.48,98,788/- for the period September 2004 to March 2008. Apart from this they have also paid the interest of Rs.75,11,467/-. All these workings are properly certified by the Chartered Accountant. Therefore, we find that the confirmed demand is not legally sustainable and we set aside the same and allow the Appeal on meri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the aforesaid waste, refuse or by-product. Similarly, Cenvat should not be denied if the inputs are used in any intermediate of the final product even if such intermediate is exempt from payment of duty. The basic idea is that Cenvat credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and whether directly or indirectly." Moreover, the Revenue itself in subsequent period has held that non-granulated slag is not excisable. In these circumstances, the appellants have a strong case. The impugned Order-in-Appeal has no merit. Hence we allow the appeal with consequential relief." 10. Similarly, in the case of Mukand Ltd. v. Commissioner of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by-product during the manufacture of the final products, would not call for payment of any percentage amount on its value in terms of erstwhile Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The said decision again stands confirmed by a later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2014 (303) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.)]. 4. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The same is, accordingly, upheld and the Revenue's appeal is rejected." 6.1 In view of the Division Bench decision in appellant's own case along with other cases relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law a....