2006 (12) TMI 37 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat alleged that appellants willfully suppressed the fact of production and clearance f exempted final products and accordingly interest and penalty imposed on him Authority allow consequential relief after considering the detail

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged willful suppression of production and clearance of exempted final products using Cenvat credit
- Demand under Rule 12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
- Imposition of interest and penalties
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 regarding exempted by-products
- Applicability of case laws on exempted products and by-products
- Dispute over maintaining separate accounts or paying 8% of the sale price for exempted products
- Relevance of circular clarifications by the Board

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved the appellants being accused of willfully suppressing the production and clearance of exempted final products by utilizing Cenvat credit, leading to a demand of Rs.4,29,89,639/- under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, interest and penalties were imposed, which the appellants contested vehemently.

During the proceedings, the appellants argued that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not apply to exempted by-products, citing various case laws to support their position. They highlighted precedents such as CCE, Pune v. Rajaram Solvex Ltd. and Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, emphasizing that the rule pertains to final products, not by-products exempted from duty.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellants should have paid 8% of the sale price for the exempted by-products, as per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. They relied on a High Court decision and circular clarifications by the Board to support their argument that the rule mandates payment in the absence of separate accounts.

After careful review, the Tribunal sided with the appellants, ruling that Rule 6(3)(b) does not apply to exempted by-products like De-Oiled Cakes in this case. They emphasized that the cited case laws were relevant despite the introduction of new rules, as the essence remained consistent. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments and the appellant's own case to support their decision, ultimately allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the interpretation of specific rules, the application of case laws, and the significance of maintaining separate accounts for exempted products. The Tribunal's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents underscored the complexity of excise duty matters and the importance of precise legal interpretation in such disputes.