9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2208 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - No dutiable input used in clearance of Exempted finished goods - Whether appellant is required to pay amounts at a particular rate on the value of exempted goods (Bio Feed) cleared by the appellants under provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - As per the argument made by the appellant Bio Feed is made from the waste generated in the manufacturing of products like Calcium Gluconate, Enzymes, Flavours, which are cleared on payment of duty. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue that duty paid inputs are directly used in the manufacture of exempted byproduct Bio Feed. In the absence of any such corroborative evidence, duty paid inputs used by the appellant will be deemed to have been used in the manufacture of dutiable goods Calcium Gluconate, Enzymes, Flavours etc., manufactured by the appellant and cleared on payment of duty. Accordingly, it is held that the present appeal is covered by the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT) and order dated 09.01.2013 passed by Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, vs Anil Products Ltd.(2013 (10) TMI 798 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ). - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Whether appellant is required to pay amounts at a particular rate on the value of exempted goods cleared under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The appeals were filed against different OIAs passed by the first appellate authority, but as the issue involved in all three appeals was the same, they were taken up together. The main issue in question was whether the appellant needed to pay a specific rate on the value of exempted goods (Bio Feed) cleared under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant argued that no duty paid inputs were directly used in the manufacture of Bio Feed, relying on relevant case laws. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for dutiable and exempted goods and should pay 5% on the value of Bio Feed. After hearing both sides and examining the case records, it was observed that the duty paid inputs used by the appellant were not directly connected to the manufacture of Bio Feed. The judgment referred to previous rulings by the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court to support the decision. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's position on Rule 57CC, emphasizing the need for maintaining separate records for inputs used in dutiable and non-dutiable products. It highlighted that in cases where duty paid inputs were not directly involved in the production of exempted goods, the requirement of maintaining separate records did not apply. In this context, the court analyzed the appellant's claim that Bio Feed was produced from waste generated during the manufacturing of other dutiable products. Since there was no evidence presented by the Revenue showing a direct link between duty paid inputs and the production of Bio Feed, the inputs were deemed to have been used in the manufacture of dutiable goods cleared with duty payment. The judgment concluded that the appellant's appeal aligned with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, leading to the allowance of the appeals. In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue by determining that the appellant was not required to pay an amount at a rate of 5% on the value of exempted Bio Feed, as the duty paid inputs were deemed to have been utilized in the production of dutiable goods. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant case laws and the absence of evidence demonstrating a direct connection between the inputs and the exempted product.
|
