2013 (8) TMI 683 - AT - Central Excise

Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Rule 57CC of the earlier Rules - Applicant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, availing CENVAT credit benefit - During the process of manufacture of sugar, a by-product bagasse (a non-dutiable product) emerges, which was used in the generation of electricity Held that - Relying upon the decision in the case of India Potash Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported in 2012 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI held that the assessee is not required to pay an amount equal to 8% on sale value of bagasse under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rule, 2004 - Waiver of pre-deposit of dues allowed and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of Rs.2,15,91,035/- on exempted goods "Bagasse" for the period May'08 to July'10 under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules read with proviso Section 11A(1) of the Act, interest under Rule 14 read with Section 11AB, and penalty under Rule 15(3) read with Section 11AC.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of Pre-deposit
The appellant sought waiver of pre-deposit of a substantial amount related to exempted goods "Bagasse." The Tribunal noted that the appellant is engaged in sugar manufacturing and utilizes bagasse, a non-dutiable by-product, for electricity generation. The adjudicating authority demanded payment based on Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, equivalent to 10% of bagasse sale price. The appellant referenced precedents, including the case of India Potash Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, where it was held that no payment equal to 8% of bagasse sale value is required under Rule 6(3). The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision not sustainable, granted waiver of pre-deposit, and stayed recovery during the appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rules
The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting interpretations of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, regarding the payment obligation on bagasse sale value. While the adjudicating authority relied on a different rule and previous cases, the appellant's reference to India Potash Ltd. case highlighted a divergent view. The Tribunal's decision to grant waiver indicates a departure from the Commissioner's interpretation, emphasizing the need for a consistent application of rules and precedents in similar cases.

Conclusion
The Tribunal's judgment in the case addressed the appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit concerning exempted goods "Bagasse." By considering the specific circumstances of the appellant's manufacturing process and relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, citing precedents to support its decision. The ruling underscores the importance of consistent interpretation and application of rules in tax matters, ensuring fairness and adherence to established legal principles.