2026 (4) TMI 945

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....177/- from the appellant under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR] read with section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act] along with interest and imposed an equal amount as penalty under rule 15(2) of the CCR read with Section 11AC of the Act. 2. During the relevant period, the appellant manufactured excisable/ dutiable final products, namely, starch and glucose. In the process, some non-excisable goods, namely, husk and dry husk, gluten, oil and oil cake also emerged. The appellant paid duty on the excisable goods and cleared the non-excisable goods without paying any duty. 3. Two show cause notices dated 28.10.2015 and 02.02.2016 were issued to the appellant covering the periods 2010-11 to December 2014 and Januar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned counsel for the appellant placed on record the flow chart of the process of manufacture of goods by the appellant from Maize and asserted that the appellant had not availed CENVAT credit on common inputs which were used for manufacture of dutiable as well as non-excisable (exempted) products at all. He, therefore, asserted that the question of payment of an amount equal to 5%/6% of the value of the non-excisable goods under rule 6(3) of CCR would not arise at all. He submitted a certificate from Chartered Accountant M/s SMR and  Company dated August 12, 2023 relevant portion of which is as follows: "Introduction We SMR & Co., Chartered Accountants have examined the process of manufacturing shown in the flow chart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner in the first round of litigation. Therefore, the Commissioner committed no error in examining the matter taking into consideration this Explanation and confirming the demand with interest and penalty. 12. We have considered the submissions advanced by both the sides and perused the records. 13. Had the appellant submitted the CA's Certificate during the first round of litigation or during adjudication are at least at the remand proceedings, there would have been no case for confirming the demand of an amount under rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. The finding of the Commissioner in his order dated 27.10.2017 as well as the appellant's contention (as the respondent)during the firs....