TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1501
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Central Excise Rules for carrying out the said manufacturing activities at its steel plant in Durgapur in the State of West Bengal. (ii) The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various iron and steel products namely billets, blooms, TMT bars, etc. and discharges its duty liabilities by way of payment through the Current Account (Personal Ledger Account) and availment and utilisation of cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. The appellant avails cenvat credit on various types of goods, including different types of refractory bricks basically consumables and used in the manufacture of iron and steel products within the factory premises of the appellant. Such refractory bricks are sometimes classified as inputs and sometimes as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cenvat Credit Rules"). (iii) The waste and scrap of used refractory bricks were cleared without payment of duty applying the ratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The abovementioned four show cause notices dated May 3, 2010, July 1, 2010, March 10, 2011 and January 18, 2012 respectively covered the period from May 2005 to March 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "said show cause notices"). The demands raised are presented in a tabular form below for convenience. Sl. No. Show Cause cum Demand Notice Nos. & Date Period Covered Duty Demand (Rs.) 1. 23/COMMR/BOL/10 dt. 03.05.2010 May 2005 to May 2009 78,23,816 2. 73/JC/BOL/10 dt. 01.07.2010 June 2009 to March 2010 13,75,931 3. 04/DC/DGP-III/2011 dt. 10.03.2011 April 2010 to December 2011 3,02,246 4. 01/AC/DGP-III/2012 dt. 18.01.2012 January 2011 to March 2011 2,98,071 Total duty demand 98,00,064 4.1. Subsequently, a common personal hearing was held in the proceedings under the said show cause notices, since they involved the same issue, by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Durgapur Commissionerate, on March 14, 2017, at which the appellant's representative duly appeared and made submissions. 4.2. The appellant also, by a letter d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is that in terms of Rule 3(5A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the appellant is liable to reverse the CENVAT Credit availed by them. It is his submission that Rule 3(5A) of the Rules is applicable when goods are cleared "as such"; that as in the present case, the goods have not been cleared "as such", Rule 3(5A) has no application to their case and therefore they are not liable to reverse any CENVAT Credit. He further submits that this view has been taken by this Tribunal in the following cases: - i. Vasavadatta Cement Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum [2003 (157) E.L.T. 272 (Tri. - Bang.)], ii. Century Cement Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur [2017 (3) TMI 1071 - CESTAT New Delhi] 8. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue supported the impugned order. 9. Heard the parties. 10. We find that the short issue involved in this matter is as to whether the appellant is liable to reverse the CENVAT Credit availed in terms of Rule 3(5A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, or not. 11. For better appreciation of the facts, Rule 3(5A) of the Rules is reproduced hereinbelow: - "(5) When inputs or capital goods, on which C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by both sides with reference to the facts and on perusal of records we find that the Department proceeded to charge the duty on the item in question on the ground that it falls under Chapter 69. To charge duty on an item the item should not only be dutiable but it should be specified under correct heading. It cannot be said that broadly the item falls under Chapter 69. There is force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee that item as such was not mentioned in Chapter 69. Since it is not specified under which sub-heading of the Chapter 69 the item falls, we do not find any justification to levy the duty on the item in question. In view of our foregoing conclusion, the item as such is not excisable and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any." 14.1. Further, in the case of Century Cement Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Raipur [2017 (3) TMI 1071 - CESTAT New Delhi] this Tribunal again examined the aforesaid issue, wherein the facts were as under: - "After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Cement and were availing the benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various items. They originally too....