2018 (3) TMI 1786 - AT - Central Excise

Taxability - scrap arising out of wear/tear or outcome of repair process within the factory premises - HELD THAT - The appellants used certain MS items for repair, re-structuring and certain items emerged due to general wear and tear. Those items are identifiable and distinguishable from the manufactured scrap - in the absence of evidence to support that all scrap were arising during manufactured, we find force in the submission of the appellant - duty liability on such normally resultant scrap due to wear and tear or repair etc. cannot be sustained - demand set aside. Reversal of CENVAT Credit - certain goods cleared in terms of Rule 3 (5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT - The appellants have reversed the credit wherever the capital goods were identified and cleared as such - these scrap are generated scrap due to disintegration and general maintenance work, not out of capital goods. Since, no capital goods were identified in demand proceedings to comply with Rule 3 (5A), there is no justification to uphold the demand - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty liability on scrap arising from wear/tear or repair process within factory premises.
2. Demand for reversal of credit on certain goods cleared under Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Duty liability on scrap arising from wear/tear or repair process within factory premises

The appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner regarding duty liability on scrap generated from wear/tear or repair processes within the factory. The appellant argued that no duty liability should arise for iron and steel scrap resulting from repair and maintenance or general wear/tear, distinct from manufacturing processes. The Tribunal noted the appellant's compliance with paying duty on manufactured scrap highlighted by an audit. However, the impugned order ruled against the appellant due to the lack of documentary evidence segregating the scrap. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, emphasizing the identifiable nature of scrap arising from manufacturing leaf springs, distinguishing them from repair-related scrap. As evidence supporting that all scrap originated during manufacturing was absent, the duty liability on scrap from wear/tear or repair processes was deemed unsustainable.

Issue 2: Demand for reversal of credit under Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules

Regarding the demand for reversal of credit under Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the appellant had already reversed credit where capital goods were identified and cleared as such. The contention arose from the Department seeking further reversal on MS scrap, claimed by the appellant to not be from capital goods but generated from disintegration and general maintenance activities. As no identification of capital goods occurred during the demand proceedings to comply with Rule 3 (5A), the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the demand for additional reversal. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the duty liability on scrap arising from wear/tear or repair processes within the factory premises and the demand for reversal of credit under Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision favored the appellant, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and identification to establish duty liability and credit reversal requirements accurately.