2019 (5) TMI 1998 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - removal of iron ore fines - Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra and it have been decided by this Tribunal in BHAGWATI POWER STEEL LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -RAIPUR 2018 (12) TMI 1104 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , that in the course of manufacture of sponge iron, iron ore lumps of different sizes as received by the manufacturer, are firstly subjected to crushing. Thereafter, iron ore fines are separated by screening, at the raw material handing plant. The said iron ore fines which is in powder form cannot be used for manufacture of sponge iron. Further, iron ore lumps and iron ore fines are separately classifiable under Central Excise Tariff depending upon the percentage of iron content therein. As iron ore fines is not a manufactured produce, but a residue, the provisions of Rule 6 of CCR are not attracted. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the manufacturer of sponge iron is required to pay an amount by way of reversal under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 on removal of iron ore fines.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in sponge iron manufacturing, sold iron ore fines during a specific period. The appellant utilized inputs for both dutiable final products and exempted goods without maintaining separate records as required by Rule 6(2)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As a result, a demand of Rs. 14,28,884 was raised under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped this demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld it, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

Decision:
The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in Bhagwati Power & Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, Raipur, where it was established that iron ore fines, being a residue and not a manufactured product, are not subject to Rule 6 of CCR. The iron ore fines, separated during the sponge iron manufacturing process, are not usable for further manufacturing. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted the appellant consequential benefits as per the law.

This judgment clarifies the applicability of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 in cases involving the sale of iron ore fines by sponge iron manufacturers. It emphasizes the distinction between dutiable final products and exempted goods, highlighting the importance of maintaining separate records to avoid liability under Rule 6. The decision provides clarity on the treatment of iron ore fines as a residue rather than a manufactured product, exempting them from the provisions of Rule 6.