2023-VIL-964-CESTAT-KOL-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2023-VIL-964-CESTAT-KOL-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Clearance of finished goods without payment of duty by availing the benefit exemption Notification Nos. 10/97, 3/2001 and 29/2003 – Denial of exemption and duty demand on the ground that appellant has not produced certificate from the Head of the Institution at the time of clearance of the goods – HELD - the Appellant has produced necessary Certificate from the Head of the Institution after clearance of the goods. The notification envisages production of the certificate at the time of clearance of the goods - delay in submission of the certificates is only a procedural lapse - the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the Appellant for the delayed submission of the Certificates. Accordingly, demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable and set aside – appeal is allowed - Clearance of Non-Conventional Energy Devices/Systems - Regarding the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification 03/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 superseded by Notification 6/2001-CE dated 01.03.2002 – HELD - Sl. No 237 of the said Notification exempts Non-Conventional Energy Devices/Systems specified in Serial No 21 of List 9 (Sl No. 16 of List 5 of Notification 03/2001) which are manufactured and consumed within the factory of production of Non-Conventional Energy Devices - the goods cleared have been used in the manufacture of Non-Conventional Energy Devices. Accordingly, appellants are eligible for the benefit of the notification 03/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 superseded by Notification 6/2001-CE dated 01.03.2002. Hence, the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count is not sustainable - Manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods – Demand on account of non-maintenance of separate accounts for the Cenvat credit availed on the inputs used in the exempted goods – HELD - Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 gives two options to a manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods, who are not maintaining separated accounts for the inputs used in dutiable goods and exempted goods – appellant have to pay either 8%/10% of the value of exempted goods or they have to pay an amount as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A). The Appellant in this case has adopted the payment of 8%/10% of the value of exempted goods. Thus, appellant has complied with requirement as prescribed in Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004. But the correctness of the amount paid needs to be verified. The matter needs to be remanded for verification purpose – appeal is allowed by remand
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?