2011 (2) TMI 808 - AT - Central Excise

Applicability - Rule 6 (3) (b) or not - Common Inputs used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - Clearance of buy product at nil rate of duty under Notification No.04/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 (S.No.32) along with dutiable finished goods - The department contented that since the appellants are not maintaining separate accounts and inventory of the dutiable final product and exempted final product and credit of Central Excise duty on common inputs has been availed, Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be attracted and they will be required to pay an amount of 10% of the price of spent sulphuric acid -The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Narmada Gelatine Ltd. vs. CCE, 2008 -TMI - 32224 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , wherein it has been held that provisions of Rule 6(3) (b) are not applicable in the case of arising inevitable waste or bye-product fully exempt from duty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on spent sulphuric acid.
2. Maintaining separate accounts for dutiable final product and exempted final product.
3. Duty demand confirmation against the appellant.
4. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:

1. Application of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on spent sulphuric acid:
The case revolved around the appellant, engaged in manufacturing detergent powder and cakes, producing spent sulphuric acid as a by-product cleared at nil rate of duty. The department demanded payment under Rule 6(3)(b) due to the lack of separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products. The appellant contested this citing precedents where such credits were not required to be reversed. The Tribunal, referencing Narmada Gelatine Ltd. vs. CCE, Bhopal and CCE vs. Rallis India Ltd., held that Rule 6(3)(b) does not apply to inevitable waste or by-products fully exempt from duty. Thus, the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

2. Maintaining separate accounts for dutiable final product and exempted final product:
The issue of maintaining separate accounts for dutiable and exempted final products was central to the dispute. The appellant argued the impracticality of such segregation due to the nature of the by-product. The Tribunal, following established case law, acknowledged the difficulty in maintaining separate accounts for such unavoidable waste or by-products fully exempt from duty. Therefore, the requirement for separate accounts was deemed inapplicable in this scenario.

3. Duty demand confirmation against the appellant:
The duty demand of Rs.1,46,435/- was confirmed against the appellant by the department, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both sides and legal precedents, found the demand to be unjustified given the nature of the by-product and the exemption from duty. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the duty demand was set aside.

4. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the duty demand. The Tribunal, after a thorough review of the case, determined that the Commissioner's decision was not in line with established legal principles and precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's order and ruling in favor of the appellant.