2012 (11) TMI 1032 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - Revenue by entertaining the view that as the appellants are selling the dutiable as also exempted products, and are availing Cenvat credit on various inputs and input services, they are required to pay 10% of the value of exempted final product in terms of provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that - requirement of payment of 10% of the value of exempted product is relatable to the final product and not to waste or by-product. Inasmuch as the fine sponge iron emerged as waste material during the course of sponge iron, I am of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that there is no requirement of payment of 10% of the value of iron ore fine cleared by the appellant. No infirmity is found in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Following decision of Rallies India 2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding payment of duty on exempted products, Applicability of Rule 6 to waste or by-products, Consideration of iron ore fines as waste or final product.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to the manufacturing process of sponge iron where iron ore fines emerged as a by-product. The Revenue contended that since the appellant was selling both dutiable and exempted products while availing Cenvat credit, they were liable to pay 10% of the value of the exempted final product as per Rule 6. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant, leading to a demand notice for duty covering a specific period. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the assessee, prompting the Revenue to file the present appeal.

Upon reviewing the Commissioner (Appeals) order, it was noted that the appellant's manufacturing process involved the production of sponge iron, with iron ore fines emerging as a by-product. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the nature of iron ore fines, emphasizing that they were not a separate product but rather waste material resulting from the processing of raw materials. The Commissioner (Appeals) also highlighted that the appellant had established their unit for sponge iron production, not waste manufacturing, and that the iron ore fines were essentially unusable segregated raw material sold as waste.

The Tribunal, in its judgment, referred to previous decisions establishing that Rule 6 does not apply to waste or by-products generated during the production of final goods. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in Rallies India, it was clarified that the requirement to pay duty on exempted products is linked to the final product, not waste materials. Given that the iron ore fines were deemed waste material in the course of sponge iron production, the Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that no duty payment was necessary on the iron ore fines cleared by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the non-applicability of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules to waste or by-products arising during manufacturing processes, emphasizing that the duty payment obligation pertains to final products rather than waste materials. The decision provided clarity on the treatment of iron ore fines as waste and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling in favor of the appellant, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.