2013 (11) TMI 1225 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for capital goods cenvat credit under Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Capital goods used exclusively for manufacture of exempted final product - Held that - It cannot be said that the capital goods were being exclusively used in the manufacture of final product and hence the provision of Rules 6 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable - CCE Mangalore vs. Rajashri Packages Ltd. 2011 (3) TMI 732 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - When the use of capital goods for manufacture of refined vegetable oil from canola vegetable oil, a dutiable by-product also emerges, cenvat credit cannot be denied in respect of the capital goods on the ground that the main product - refined vegetable oil was fully exempted from duty, as this is not a case where capital goods have been used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted final product Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for capital goods cenvat credit under Rule 6 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86-CE regarding duty exemption.
3. Treatment of waste and scrap generated during job work.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for capital goods cenvat credit under Rule 6 (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent for capital goods cenvat credit amounting to Rs.19,71,569/- due to the exclusive use of capital goods in the manufacture of exempted final products. The Department contended that the respondent, by availing exemption under Notification No. 214/86-CE, should not be entitled to the credit. However, the Tribunal noted that waste and scrap of steel generated during the machining process were being cleared on payment of duty, indicating that the capital goods were not exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Citing a similar case where the capital goods credit was allowed despite the exemption on the main product, the Tribunal held that Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules did not apply in this scenario, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 214/86-CE regarding duty exemption
The respondent was receiving rough castings for machining under job work challans and clearing the machined castings to the principal manufacturers without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE. The Department argued that since the goods cleared were treated as exempted, the respondent should not be eligible for capital goods cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal observed that the clearance of waste and scrap generated during the machining process on payment of duty indicated that not all products were exempted. This led to the conclusion that the respondent's activity did not exclusively involve the manufacture of exempted final products, thereby upholding the respondent's eligibility for the credit.

Issue 3: Treatment of waste and scrap generated during job work
A crucial aspect of the case was the treatment of waste and scrap generated during the job work process. The Department contended that the respondent's clearance of machined castings without duty payment should be considered as the clearance of exempted final products. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the clearance of steel scrap on payment of duty during the machining process indicated that not all products fell under the exempted category. This distinction played a significant role in determining the eligibility of the respondent for capital goods cenvat credit, as the capital goods were not exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final products, as per the provisions of Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and disposed of the Cross Objection, affirming the respondent's eligibility for capital goods cenvat credit based on the interpretation of the relevant rules and notifications in the context of the activities and products involved in the case.