Central Excise - Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Manufacture of dutiable goods as well as goods for which no rate of duty is specified - appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of Glocose which is dutiable and Madhu/Honey against which no rate of duty was specified - appellant was also engaged in trading goods manufactured by third-parties - Despite following the methodology of availing credit pertaining only to dutiable turnover of the appellant, demand is confirmed for recovery 6% of the value of honey treating it an exempted goods – HELD – appellant is manufacturing Glucose and Honey/Madhu whereas Glucose is dutiable and Honey although excisable, but no rate of duty is mentioned in the tariff. Further, for the period up to 31st March 2014, the ISD was not disputing the advertisement services pertaining to the Honey, but for the advertisement services, they are disputing the credit pertaining to Glucose which is dutiable - for the period July 2015 to January 2017 and pre-show cause notice consultation by the revenue and the said issue has been settled by dropping the CERA objection raised against the appellant - On going through the said pre-show cause notice consultation letter and dropping proceeding against the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is reversing proportionate cenvat credit, as per Rule 6(3)(a) therefore appellant is not required to pay 6% of the value of Honey cleared by them – further, no duty is payable on honey as the same is classifiable under CTH 0409 00 00 of CETA, 1985, where no rate of duty is mentioned. That does not mean that Honey becomes exempted - the provisions of Rule 6 are not applicable to the facts of this case as Honey is not an exempted goods. As such, proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable under Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 - the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed

Quick Search


Create Account

Log In

Forgot Password

Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page