Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nav Durga Fuels Pvt vs C.C.E., Raipur on 11 July, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066. Date of Hearing/Order : 11.07.2016 For Approval &Signature : Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Appeal No.E/1364/2009-EX[DB] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.03/RPR-I/2009, dated 22.01.2009 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I] M/s. Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Raipur Respondent
Appearance None - For Appellant Mr. G.R. Singh, DR - For Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No.52880/2016, dated 11.07.2016 Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and avail Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods and also service tax paid on the input services. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service for bringing iron ore to the factory. The Department has confirmed the service tax demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that iron ore were commonly used for manufacture of dutiable product, i.e., sponge iron and the exempted goods i.e., iron ore fines. The demand confirmed in the adjudication order was upheld in the impugned order dated 22.01.2009. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Despite issuance of notice, none appeared for the appellant. Heard Shri G.R. Singh, ld. Departmental Representative, who reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
3. The short question involved in the appeal for consideration is as to whether iron ore fines can be considered as exempted goods for the purpose of payment of amount provided under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. In the process of screening and handling of iron ore, some fines generated, which the appellant sold to its customers. Generation of iron ore fines cannot be considered as separate excisable commodity, since no manufacturing activity is involved for emergence of the same out of iron ore by the appellant. Further, iron ore fines is not exempted from payment of duty in terms of Notification issued by the Central Govt. Thus, in our view, iron ore fines will not be considered as exempted goods and the embargo created in Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will not apply for removal of iron ore in fines form from the factory. Therefore, confirmation of demand on the appellant by the authorities below is not proper and justified. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order, we allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) SSK -3-