2025 (12) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Copper Anodes and cathodes falling under Chapter 74 of the CETA, 1985 by subjecting the Copper concentrate to one smelting process. During the smelting process, Sulphur di-oxide gas emerges which is further converted into Sulphuric acid, an excisable product falling under chapter 28.07 of CETA. This Sulphuric acid is partly cleared to fertilizer units without payment of Duty by availing exemption under Notification No.04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and w.e.f. 17.03.2012 under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The remaining Sulphuric acid is used to manufacture Phosphoric Acid. Since, same input services were being used for the manufacture of both copper anode/cathode the excisable final p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... There was no necessity and actually it was impossible to maintain separate records for zinc concentrate used in production of sulphuric acid -Requirements of Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 were fully met and recovery there under of 8% sale price of exempted sulphuic acid to fertilized plants was unsustainable...." 4. Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [supra], held that sulfuric acid generated as a byproduct in the manufacture of zinc or similar products is not in the nature of a final product and thus, the assesse was not required to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004); and as such, was not required to pay the requisite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sideration is, "whether the refund claim to the extent it is subject-matter of this Appeal, is hit by time bar as held by the authorities below?" 8. Thrust of the contentions of Shri Vishal Agrawal, Ld. Advocate is that the refund claim was not a 'Central Excise duty' but was relating to the exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR, 2004 for which, limitation prescribed under Section 11B could not apply. He would also submit that the ratio of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs UOI - 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC) was therefore not applicable as the refund claim here, in the case on hand was not refund of 'duty'. He would rely on the following decisions/orders, in support of his contentions:- * 3E Infotech Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2018 (18) G.S.T.L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne another decision of the Apex Court in VKC Footsteps India Pvt. Ltd. In the light of the above, he would submit that the denial of refund being time-barred, as confirmed in the impugned order, may kindly be upheld. 10. We have considered the rival contentions at length; there is no dispute insofar as the facts are concerned. The Appellant clearly admits that the period of dispute is from April 2011 to March 2014 for which the application for refund was filed on 05.06.2014 (date of the application doesn't matter). The Commissioner (Appeals) has, after a detailed analysis granted partial refund for the period which was not hit by limitation, which order stands accepted by the Department and, hence, insofar as the earlier periods of dispu....