Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Tanfac Industries Ltd on 30 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/202/2010
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.44/2010 (P) dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry
Appellant
Versus
M/s.TANFAC Industries Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv. For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 30.07.2010 Date of decision : 30.07.2010 Final Order No.____________ According to the Revenue, the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are applicable against the assessees as they are clearing Hydrofluoric Acid and Sulphuric Acid both on payment of duty as well as under exemption in terms of Notification No.10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, and are therefore required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted final product, as they are not maintaining separate accounts.
2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that both the products are excisable/dutiable. It is only when the same goods are cleared to certain categories of customers stipulated in the notification above mentioned, that they do not attract duty liability. This does not make the goods in question, non-dutiable or exempt. I am fortified in my view by the decisions of the Tribunal in Greaves Ltd. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2007 (211) E.L.T.563 (Tri.-Chennai)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs DCW Ltd. [2009 (234) E.L.T.163 (Tri.-Chennai)]. The above decisions are in the context of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 6 which is the relevant rule in the present case, is pari materia with Rule 57CC in the sense that both require manufacture of two categories of products, namely, one excisable and the other exempted.
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 30-07-2010 ??
??
??
??
2