9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 1184 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Waste - coke fines - whether coke fines, which is admittedly a waste product which is generated as a result of manufacturing process carried by the respondent through its establishment is exigible to tax? - Held that - Adverting to the provisions contained in Rule 6 (2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the concept of input and output as emerging out of the definition clause of those Rules, it is evident that the Tribunal had not misdirected itself in arriving at conclusion that coke fines are part of waste resulting out of the manufacturing process in the establishment of the respondent and cannot be subjected to levy or be required to be accounted in term of Rule 6(2) or 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Ru1es - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding the exigibility of coke fines as a waste product. - Application of the decision in Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2014 (303) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) to the case. - Determination of whether coke fines are a byproduct or final product of the manufacturing process. Interpretation of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: The High Court addressed the question of law framed in the appeal, focusing on the correct application of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in considering coke fines as outputs of the manufacturing process, contrary to the rules. However, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision was in line with the law, as coke fines were deemed to be waste products and not subject to the provisions of Rule 6(2) or 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Application of the decision in Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd.: The Court considered the decision in Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2014 (303) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.), which was referenced by the Tribunal and the respondent's counsel. This case law was cited to support the argument that coke fines should be treated as a byproduct rather than a final product of the manufacturing process. The Court noted that the Tribunal had appropriately applied the principles from the Hindustan Zinc case to the present matter. Determination of coke fines as a byproduct or final product: The Court analyzed the manufacturing process of the respondent, emphasizing that coke fines were generated as a byproduct during the manufacturing of iron and steel products. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that coke fines were not the final product but a byproduct in the form of waste. As such, the respondent was not held liable under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal had considered all relevant facts and correctly concluded that coke fines were not subject to levy or accounting under the CENVAT Credit Rules. In conclusion, the High Court ruled against the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the exigibility of coke fines as a waste product. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
|
