Commissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry Vs. M/S. Tanfac Industries Ltd - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942156
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnJul-30-2010
Case NumberAppeal No.E/202 of 2010
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT
AppellantCommissioner of Central Excise, Puducherry
RespondentM/S. Tanfac Industries Ltd
Advocates:For the Appellants: Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR. For the Respondent: Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate.
Excerpt:
honourable ms. jyoti balasundaram, vice-president 1. 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.
Judgment:

Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President

1. 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.