TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 to August, 2011, has been confirmed. 2. The issue involved is whether Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) is applicable in respect of final goods cleared under Notification No. 04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 read with procedure under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as CER, 2001) treating it as exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(1) & 6(2) of CCR. 3. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of various excisable goods, including Sulphuric Acid, which is dutiable and applicable duty has been paid by them. However, the appellants were also clearing the said sulphuric acid to various manufacturers of fertilizers under CER, 2001 (erstw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er X procedure, there was a provision for remission, whereas, in terms of procedure under CER, 2001, there is an exemption. 5. Learned Advocate has mainly argued that the issue is no longer res integra as in their own case, in respect of identical issue, periodical SCNs issued to their units as well as their sister units for the period from September, 2011 to October, 2015, where also the clearances were under Notification No.04/2006-CE, following the same procedure under CER, 2001 and demand was made as per Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, the Tribunal has set aside the Orders. Therefore, when the similar issue has already been set aside by the Tribunal for earlier as well as later period, this appeal should also be allowed. Therefore, their goods,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion for determination is whether clearance of goods in terms of CER, 2001 would amount to granting of exemption to the goods at the time of clearance from the factory of manufacturer or it would be considered as exemption in the hands of recipient of goods subject to compliance with its end use for specified purpose. We have perused the Notification No.04/2006-CE, which is an exemption notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. At S.No.32, it exempts the duty which is in excess of the amount calculated at the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column No.4. The rate provided in column No.4 is 'Nil'. Therefore, the entire duty would stand exempted in terms of this notification....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar that this is an enabling provision for availing exemption by a manufacturer who intends to procure and use certain specified goods for an intended purpose and therefore, in case he is not able to prove that it has been used as such, he is responsible for paying the amount equal to duty to the extent not paid due to exemption availed in the hands of manufacturer of goods. Therefore, the exemption notification, which is subject to a condition, as prescribed in CER, 2001, essentially, is not an exemption notification for the manufacturer of goods, per se, but it is an exemption, which is availed by the recipient of goods and the liability to pay the duty for failure to comply with the condition of the notification is on the recipient. It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd [2008 (223) ELT 508 (Tri-Del)], which was further upheld by the Apex Court reported at [2010 (255) ELT A13 (SC)], whereby, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed. She has also relied on the judgment in the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Co Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad [2010 (255) ELT 314 (Tri-Mum)]. Similarly, in the Final Order dt.22.12.2016 & Final Order dt.17.04.2018, in the appellant's own cases, learned Single Members of this Bench referred to the earlier Final Order dt.26.09.2016 and allowed the appeal in favour of the appellant and dismissed another appeal filed by the department respectively. 11. We, therefore, find that the Single Member Bench has already allowed the appeal relying on the ratio of the judgment of Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he procedure prescribed under CER, 2001 are concerned, they are more or less identical. Therefore, the ratio of Hon'ble High Court judgment, relied upon by the Bench in their own case, supra, is applicable in the present case also. Apart from that, in the case of SRF Ltd (supra) also, similar view was taken and the Revenue went on to appeal before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. We also find that in the case of Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Co Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (supra), it was, inter alia, held that provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 is not applicable, where the goods have been cleared against CT3 certificate to the fertilizer manufacturing unit in terms of notification 04/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006. 13. Thus, following the ratio of t....