2010 (7) TMI 963 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on certain products
2. Credit on inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of final products
3. Demand of duty on BHGO and Naphtha used for electricity generation
4. Interpretation of Notification No. 67/95
5. Exemption eligibility under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules
6. Definition of "factory" under different acts

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding duty liability on various products manufactured by the appellants, including LPG, SKO, Naphtha, and others. The period in question was from October 2007 to March 2008. The appellants claimed exemption for certain products based on specific clauses of Rule 6(3)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellants took credit on inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable final products but did not claim credit on inputs exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted products like LPG, SKO, and Naphtha. They calculated the credit based on the ratio of dutiable and exempted final products cleared during the month.

3. The dispute also involved the demand of duty on Bombay High Gas Oil (BHGO) and Naphtha used for generating electricity within the factory, which was further utilized in the production of exempted products. The appellants argued that the obligation under Rule 6(3)(a) had been fulfilled for the exempted products.

4. The interpretation of Notification No. 67/95 was crucial in determining the exemption eligibility for products like Naphtha and BHGO used for electricity generation. The appellants sought exemption under clause (vi) of the proviso to the notification, which required the reversal of proportionate credit for inputs used in exempted final products.

5. The Tribunal analyzed the amendments to Notification No. 67/95 and Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. They found that the appellants, being manufacturers of both dutiable and exempted final products, had reversed proportionate credit for exempted products, making them prima facie eligible for the claimed exemption.

6. Lastly, the definition of "factory" under different acts played a role in determining the eligibility of electricity used in administrative buildings and canteens for duty exemption. The Tribunal considered the restrictive definition under the Factories Act, 1948, and previous judgments to support the appellants' case for waiver of pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, waiving the requirement of pre-deposit until the appeal's disposal based on the prima facie eligibility for exemption and interpretation of relevant laws and notifications.