COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. GOYAL PROTEINS LTD.
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-175
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 16,2015

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Appellant
VERSUS
Goyal Proteins Ltd. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RALLIS INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

RAKESH KUMAR, J. - (1.)Since the issue involved in these appeals is identical, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The respondent in Appeals No. E/1471 and 1472/2006 -EX(DB) are manufacturers of refined vegetable oil. The period of dispute is from 1 -12 -2003 to 28 -2 -2005. In course of refining of vegetable oil, acid oil arises. During the period of dispute while the refined vegetable oil was dutiable the acid oil was fully exempt from duty. The department invoking Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 demanded 8% of the sale value of the acid oil on the ground that the respondent have not maintained separate account and inventory of the input/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final products and dutiable final products, while they had availed Cenvat credit in respect of those input/input services. It is on this basis that the demands of the amounts of Rs. 2,48,733/ - and Rs. 1,59,704/ - were confirmed against the respondent under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 by two separate orders passed by the Asst. Commissioner along with interest thereon under Sec. 11AC and equal amount of penalty were imposed. These orders of the Asstt. Commissioner were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order -in -appeal against which these appeals have been filed by the Revenue.
(2.)In case of Appeal No. E/723/2007 -Excise the respondent were manufacturing Dextrose Monohydrate and Dextrose Anhydrous, which attracted Central Excise duty and in course of manufacture of these products, a by -product viz. Hydrol arose, which was fully exempt from duty. In this case also, since the common Cenvat credit availed inputs were being used during the period of dispute from October, 1999 to September, 2004 and the department was of the view that the appellant have not maintained separate accounts and inventory of the inputs/input service meant for dutiable final products and exempted final products, by invoking Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 and earlier Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 a show cause notice was issued for demanding an amount of Rs. 2,65,206/ - from the respondent along with interest thereon under Sec. 11AB and also for imposition of penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who vide order dated 28 -1 -2005 dropped the proceedings. The department filed a review appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order -in -appeal dated 31 -10 -2006 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals have been filed by the Revenue.
(3.)Heard both the sides.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.