2012 (7) TMI 880 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Valuation - Non maintenance of separate accounts - Held that - demand is confirmed by invoking the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which provides that in case of manufactured products, both dutiable as well as exempted goods, availing credits in respect of common inputs, the manufacturer has to maintain separate account for the manufacture of exempted goods. The case of the Revenue is that bagasse, press mud and boiler ash are excisable goods, and the manufacturer of sugar and molasses are not maintaining separate records hence, as per the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the manufacturer has to pay 5%-10% of the price of the exempted goods i.e. bagasse, press mud and boiler ash. - Decision in the case of Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 2003 (10) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing of credit in respect of common inputs and input service in the manufacture of final products without maintaining separate accounts.
2. Liability to pay appropriate duty on bagasse, press mud, and boiler ash.
3. Interpretation of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Application of Rule 6 in demanding duty on boiler ash.
5. Relevance of the decision in Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (2003) in the present case.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sugar and molasses, faced a demand for availing credit without maintaining separate accounts for common inputs and input services. The Revenue contended that as the appellant cleared goods without payment of duty and did not keep separate records, appropriate duty was required under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The demand was based on Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which mandates separate accounts for manufacturing exempted goods when availing credits for common inputs. The Revenue argued that bagasse, press mud, and boiler ash are excisable goods, and due to the lack of separate records by the manufacturer of sugar and molasses, payment of 5%-10% of the exempted goods' price was necessary.

3. The Tribunal noted the settled issue regarding boiler ash by referencing the decision in Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (2003), where it was clarified that un-burnt or partly burnt coal in the boiler, termed as cinder, is not excisable goods. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from this precedent and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and highlighted the significance of maintaining separate accounts for exempted goods when availing credits for common inputs. The decision in Union of India vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. (2003) served as a guiding precedent in determining the excisability of certain goods, providing clarity on the application of relevant rules in similar cases.