2015 (10) TMI 872 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - non maintenance of separate account - Manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods - by-products - Held that - Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the earlier period making the same allegations which were upheld by the lower authorities. The matter came up before Tribunal, and vide their order dated 4.11.2008 reported as Narmada Gelatines Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal 2008 (11) TMI 75 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it was held that di-calcium phosphate and enriched di-calcium phosphate are by products which emerged during the process of manufacture of gelatine their final product. As such, the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) are not applicable. Apart from the above, learned advocate also draws our attention to Mumbai High Court decision in Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY wherein in similar circumstances, the same products were held to be by-product, thus not attracting the legal provisions for payment of same as 10% of value of final products. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) regarding the liability to pay on exempted products.
2. Consideration of by-products emerging during the manufacturing process.
3. Application of legal precedents from Mumbai High Court and Tribunal's own case.
4. Settlement of the issue based on previous judgment in the appellant's favor.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the issue of the demand confirmed against the appellant under Rule 6(3)(b) due to the emergence of hazardous mother liquor during the manufacturing process. The appellant failed to maintain separate accounts for credit availed on inputs used in both dutiable and exempted products, leading to the imposition of 8% payment on the exempted product cleared during a specific period.

2. The Tribunal notes that prior proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the same allegations, which were upheld by lower authorities. However, referring to the Narmada Gelatines Ltd. case and the Mumbai High Court decision in Rallis India Ltd., it was established that di-calcium phosphate and enriched di-calcium phosphate are by-products exempt from the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b). The Tribunal, based on these precedents, sets aside the impugned order and allows the appeal in favor of the appellant.

3. The judgment emphasizes the significance of legal precedents set by the Mumbai High Court and the Tribunal in the appellant's own case. By aligning with the decisions from these authorities, the Tribunal overturns the previous decision and grants consequential relief to the appellant, highlighting the importance of consistency and adherence to established legal interpretations.

4. Considering the settlement of the issue in the appellant's favor in a previous judgment, the Tribunal reiterates the classification of the products in question as by-products not subject to legal provisions for payment. By referencing the earlier Final Order in the appellant's favor, the Tribunal reinforces the principle of legal certainty and consistency in decision-making, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and provision of consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously analyzes the interpretation of legal provisions, consideration of by-products, application of legal precedents, and settlement based on previous judgments to ensure a fair and consistent resolution in favor of the appellant.