2012 (12) TMI 467 - AT - Central Excise

Demand of duty - manufacture of V.P. Sugar, molasses, rectified spirit and de-natured spirit - In the process of manufacture, bagasse is produced as a bye-product - appellant was availing Cenvat credit alleged that appellant cleared bagasse without payment of duty and did not declare the sale in his ER-I Returns Held that - Department is required to establish that some Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant in respect of inputs which were used for the production of bagasse at the first stage of manufacture i.e. crushing of sugar cane to extract juice - department has failed to establish that the appellant used cenvatable inputs for production of bagasse. Once it is concluded that the department has failed to establish that the appellant used cenvatable inputs for manufacture of bagasse, Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) (i) & (ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not attracted - duty demand, interest and penalty set aside

Issues:
1. Applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the manufacture of bagasse.
2. Requirement of maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of bagasse.
3. Validity of duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the manufacture of bagasse:
The case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of various products including bagasse. The department issued a show cause notice alleging that the appellant should pay excise duty on the clearance of bagasse. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant contended that the order was based on incorrect facts and misapplication of Rule 6. The appellant argued that bagasse is a waste product from the initial stage of sugarcane processing and no Cenvat credit was availed for its production. The Tribunal noted that for Rule 6 to apply, the department needed to establish the use of Cenvat credit for inputs in the production of bagasse. As the department failed to provide evidence of such usage, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not liable under Rule 6, leading to the setting aside of the duty demand, interest, and penalty.

2. Requirement of maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of bagasse:
The respondent argued that since the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing bagasse, 10% of the bagasse value should be paid as duty at the time of clearance. However, the Tribunal emphasized that Rule 6 requires the manufacturer to avail Cenvat credit for inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. As the department failed to prove the use of Cenvat credit for bagasse production, the requirement for maintaining separate accounts under Rule 6(2) was not applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the duty demand based on the absence of separate accounts was unjustified.

3. Validity of duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant:
The Tribunal found that the impugned order and the order-in-original were unsustainable in law due to the lack of evidence supporting the duty demand. The department's failure to establish the use of Cenvat credit for inputs in the production of bagasse led to the setting aside of the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was accepted, and the orders were set aside, disposing of the appeal and stay petition accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the importance of establishing the use of Cenvat credit for inputs in the manufacture of products to invoke Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment highlighted the necessity of evidence and proper application of rules in excise duty cases to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements.

← Previous Next →