{"id":241180,"date":"2020-12-24T10:30:00","date_gmt":"2020-12-24T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=241180"},"modified":"2020-12-31T19:56:44","modified_gmt":"2020-12-31T14:26:44","slug":"cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):<\/strong> The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed an appeal filed by the Department aggrieved against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).<\/p>\n

The respondent was engaged in the manufacture of lead and zinc and is also availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs and input services in terms of the provisions of the Credit Rules prevailing during the relevant period from December 2015 to March 2016. The respondent claimed to be clearing the finished goods (zinc and lead) on payment of duty and further claimed that during the relevant period, sulphuric acid was also cleared on payment of duty but some quantity of sulphuric acid was cleared to fertilizer manufacturers, after claiming exemption from payment of duty, under Entry No. 86 of the Notification dated March 17, 2012.<\/p>\n

The Department entertained a view that sulphuric acid, cleared to the fertilizer units without payment of duty, was an exempted product and hence the respondent was liable to pay an amount in terms of rule 6(3)(i) of the Credit Rules, accordingly a show cause notice was issued proposing to recover an amount @6% of the value of sulphuric acid, in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Credit Rules. The Joint Commissioner had confirmed the demand raised under rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for clearance of sulphuric acid from the factory of the respondent during the period from December, 2015 to March, 2016 for Rs 72,93,931. After which the respondent had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which had allowed the appeal relying on the Supreme Court judgment of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,<\/em> (2015) 15 SCC 312<\/a> setting aside the order of the Joint Commissioner. Thus, the instant appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal reproduced the relevant portion of the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals),<\/p>\n

\u201c8. I have carefully gone through the case records, grounds of appeal as well as submission made during the course of personal hearing. I find that main issue to be decided in this case are whether by product namely sulphuric acid emerges in appellant factory is covered under the definition of \u201eexcisable goods\u201f as per provisions of Section 2(d) of CEA, 1944, (ii) whether the \u201esulphuric acid\u201f qualifies as exempted goods under Rule 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and whether Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is applicable in the instant case or not? <\/em><\/p>\n

******* <\/em><\/p>\n

As per the above definition of exempted goods, goods should be excisable goods. In this regard, the adjudicating authority observed in OIO that in the budget of 2018, the definition of \u201eexcisable goods\u201f in clause (d) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was amended by adding an explanation that for the purposes of this clause, \u201cgoods\u201d include any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. <\/em><\/p>\n

In view of the above, the adjudicating authority found that any by-product, though emerges due to technological necessity would be included in the definition of \u201egoods\u201f, hence fall within the ambit of term \u201efinal product\u201f. Therefore, Rule 6 would become applicable automatically. <\/em><\/p>\n

******* <\/em><\/p>\n

In the light of above, I find that from decision of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court and above circular, it is clear that sulphuric acid emerged in factory of appellant was not a manufactured product and the judgment applies to both periods before and after the insertion of explanation in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 by Finance Act, 2008. <\/em><\/p>\n

Since sulphuric acid emerged in factory of appellant was not a manufactured product as discussed above even after 01.03.2008, the same is not covered under definition of \u201eexcisable goods\u201f as provided in Section 2(d) of CEA, 2004 accordingly it was not covered under the definition of \u201eexempted goods\u201f as provided in Rule 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. <\/em><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. I find that the adjudicating authority also tried to differentiate the case dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs HZL reported at 2014 (303) ELT 321 (SC), by deciding that the Sulphuric acid is a distinct product and manufacture from the by product i.e sulphur dioxide as such the same is neither a waste product nor a by product, and the appellant have separate plant and process to manufactured the Sulphuric acid. In this regard, I observe that the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court in the above-cited case and after examining the manufacture process of the appellant held that Sulphuric acid is a by-product\u2026.\u201d I, therefore, find that there is no dispute left regarding treating the Sulphuric acid as a by-product, hence finding of adjudicating authority on this account is not correct and same is set aside.\u201d<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that there was no error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).[CCE v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.,\u00a0 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 336<\/b><\/a>, decided on 09-12-2020]<\/p>\n

    \n

    Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed an <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[44608,34164,6651,44041,44610,3082,29785,44609],"class_list":["post-241180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-by-product","tag-cenvat-credit","tag-cestat","tag-exempted-goods","tag-exercisable-goods","tag-factory","tag-law","tag-manufactured-goods"],"yoast_head":"\nCESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed an\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-12-24T05:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-31T14:26:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-24T05:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-31T14:26:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) dismissed an","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-12-24T05:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-12-31T14:26:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/","name":"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2020-12-24T05:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-31T14:26:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/24\/cestat-whether-a-by-product-from-a-factory-be-considered-as-manufactured-goods-and-should-it-fall-under-excisable-goods-or-exempted-goods-as-provided-in-r-2d-o\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Whether a by-product from a factory be considered as manufactured goods and should it fall under \u2018excisable goods\u2019 or \u2018exempted goods\u2019 as provided in R. 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Tribunal answers while dismissing appeal \u00a0"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":246552,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/06\/cenvat-credit-rules\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | R. 6(3) of CCR, 2004 applicable only to manufacturers who manufacture two classes of the goods i.e. non-exempted and exempted goods; Tribunal allows appeal sets aside interest and penalty","author":"Editor","date":"April 6, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the rejection of appeal in regard to interest and penalty matter under Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules. Appellant was engaged in manufacture of PP woven fabrics and were also\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252612,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/12\/exempted-goods\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":1},"title":"CESTAT | Is there a requirement to pay 10% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? Tribunal answers","author":"Editor","date":"August 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed the appeal in which the issue was that whether the appellant was required to pay 10% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205137,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/14\/exemption-from-payment-of-excise-duty-must-be-followed-by-a-reversal-of-6-of-the-value-of-exempted-goods-or-maintenance-of-separate-account-of-inputs-and-credits\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":2},"title":"Exemption from payment of excise duty must be followed by a reversal of 6% of the value of exempted goods or maintenance of separate account of inputs and credits","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division bench comprising of C.L. Mahar (Technical) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial), Members. upheld the order of Excise Commissioner directing reversal of Cenvat credit against a manufacturer for non-compliance of Cenvat Credit Rules. The instant appeal arises against an order of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/20\/cestat-demand-of-reversal-cenvat-credit-interest-and-imposition-of-penalty-set-aside-tribunal-allows-appeal-in-matter-of-central-excise-removal-of-goods-at-concessional-rate-of-duty-for-manufact\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT | Demand of reversal Cenvat Credit, Interest, and Imposition of penalty set aside; Tribunal allows appeal in matter of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule 2001","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against in demand of reversal Cenvat Credit, Interest, and Imposition of penalty. The issue involved in appeal was that whether Rule 6 (3) (b) and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238497,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/04\/cestat-assessee-eligible-for-availing-cenvat-credit-on-service-tax-paid-on-outward-transportation-of-its-finished-goods-tribunal-dismisses-appeal-by-the-revenue\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":4},"title":"CESTAT | Assessee eligible for availing CENVAT credit on service tax paid on outward transportation of its finished goods; Tribunal dismisses appeal by the Revenue","author":"Editor","date":"November 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member), dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue alleging that the amendment of word \u201cfrom\u201d in the phrase \u201cclearance of final products from the place of removal\u201d to \u201cupto\u201d would not change the position of law as regards outward\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":239268,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/17\/cestat-procedural-lapse-is-condonable-and-denial-of-substantive-right-is-unjustified-tribunal-allows-appeal-under-r-6-3a-ii-of-cenvat-credit-rules-2004\/","url_meta":{"origin":241180,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Procedural lapse is condonable and denial of substantive right is unjustified; Tribunal allows appeal under R. 6 (3A) (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004","author":"Editor","date":"November 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Sulekha Beevi (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants had entered into a Business Solutions Agreement and another Business Promotion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241180","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=241180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/241180\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=241180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=241180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=241180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}