2019 (7) TMI 2013 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of credit availed on the common input and input services - beat pulp is being cleared by the appellant without payment of central excise duty - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT - The matter is no longer res-integra as it has already been decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT that the by-product such as bagasse, press mud, beat pulp does not fall under the category of manufactured product of the appellant and therefore the question of reversal of the Cenvat credit equivalent to 6% of value of such clearances does not arise. This Tribunal in its final decision in the case of KICHHA SUGAR COMPANY LTD. VERSUS CGST CC C.E., DEHRADUN 2018 (10) TMI 1151 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held Since the main condition for Rule 6 is still, obligation of a manufacturer or producer of final products , it doesn t extend to by- products released during the process of manufacture of main product that too without involvement of any such activity, which may be called as manufacture. The order-in-original is without any merit and same is set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of Cenvat credit on by-products like beat pulp.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Liability to pay excise duty on waste products.
4. Application of Supreme Court judgment on manufacturing activity.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses production, faced a challenge regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on by-products like beat pulp cleared without excise duty payment. The Department argued for credit reversal under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, citing the emergence of beat pulp as non-excisable goods. However, the appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment stating that by-products like beat pulp do not involve manufacturing activity, thus exempt from credit reversal.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the matter and referred to the Supreme Court's ruling that by-products such as bagasse, press mud, and beat pulp do not qualify as manufactured products, thereby negating the need for Cenvat credit reversal. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support this decision, emphasizing that waste products like beat pulp do not attract excise duty as they do not result from a manufacturing process.

3. The Tribunal delved into the interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, particularly after an amendment in 2015. It clarified that the rule applies to exempted goods used in manufacturing, which does not encompass waste by-products like beat pulp. The Tribunal concluded that no duty liability existed for the appellant during the specified periods, rejecting the Adjudicating Authority's demand for duty payment and credit reversal.

4. In alignment with the previous final order and Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal found the Adjudicating Authority's decision erroneous and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the waste products in question, including beat pulp, did not fall under the scope of manufacturing, thereby absolving the appellant from duty payment and credit reversal obligations.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough consideration of the issues at hand, highlighting the legal interpretations and precedents that guided their decision in favor of the appellant.