TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Belgaum. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of alloy / non-alloy steel and billets / blooms / rounds of alloy steel falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They procured iron ore from outside and subjected it to the process of screening / sorting on a conveyor belt to segregate iron ore fines which is an exempted final product and cannot be used in the manufacture of steel but it is marketable and sold to other potential buyers. It is alleged that since iron ore fines which emerge during the course of screening being exempted products, the cenvat credit availed on common input services viz. GTA services etc. which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Revenue that the issue is not attained finality; therefore, the learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the iron ore fines are not subjected to Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4.1. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the respondent procures Iron Ore ROM (Run of Mines). The naturally occurring iron ore contains both iron ore lumps and fines. The iron ore as procured by the respondent is subjected to the process of screening over the conveyor system for sorting or segregation of iron ore fines of size below 5mm which clog the furnace and hence not used in the factory and therefore treated as waste materials and sold to the buyers at NIL rate of duty as applicable. The iron ore of siz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of NMDC Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 281] is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the issue there was royalty charged over slime and the Court drew distinction between slimes and fines for the purpose of charging royalty over slime. He has further submitted that the Department's present appeal is contrary to the CBEC instructions which is binding on the Department. In support, he has referred to the following judgments:- i. CCE&ST Vs. Merino Panel Products (P) Ltd. [2023(383) ELT 129 (SC)] ii. CCE, jaipur-II Vs. Super Sinotex (India) Ltd. [2014(301) ELT 273 (SC)] iii. UOI Vs. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. [2007(209) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the period July 2009 to July 2012. 8. The argument of the respondent on the other hand is that the iron ore fines which emerges as a waste / by-product during the course of segregation of the iron ore of sizes 5mm and above so as to make it fit to use in the furnace cannot be considered as an exempted final product and accordingly cenvat credit availed on various input services used by the appellant requires compliance of Rule 6 of CCRs. In support, they have referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. (supra); UOI Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) and judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. (supra). 9. We find that the learned Commiss....