2016 (6) TMI 992 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on inputs/inputs services - manufacture and clearance of sugar and molasses - part of electricity generated in their captive power plant has been sold - Held that - the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant-assessee by various judgments cited supra wherein it has been consistently held that bagasse which is waste/by-product emerging during the course of crushing of sugarcane for manufacture of sugar could not be equated with exempted goods and hence, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules are not applicable - demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of Cenvat credit on electricity sold to Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.
- Applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on proportionate Cenvat credit for electricity sold.
- Interpretation of bagasse as an exempted product under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
- Admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing sugar and molasses.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appellant's appeal and upholding the order-in-original demanding Cenvat credit for electricity sold to Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner held that Cenvat credit can only be availed on dutiable final products, and where credit is used for exempted goods like bagasse, it is inadmissible. The appellant argued that bagasse, a waste by-product, cannot be equated with exempted goods, citing judgments that supported this view. The Tribunal noted various judgments holding that bagasse is not an exempted product, and hence, Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not apply. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of bagasse as an exempted product under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Deputy Commissioner demanded Cenvat credit for electricity sold based on the premise that credit for exempted goods like bagasse is inadmissible. However, the appellant argued that bagasse, being a waste by-product, should not be considered exempted. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and relevant judgments, concluded that bagasse does not fall under exempted goods, thereby rejecting the demand for proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to bagasse used for electricity generation and sale.

Another crucial aspect was the applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules on the proportionate Cenvat credit for electricity sold. The Deputy Commissioner relied on Rule 6 to demand the credit, emphasizing the distinction between dutiable and exempted final products. In contrast, the appellant contended that Rule 6 does not apply as bagasse is not an exempted product. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's stance, citing precedents that supported the non-applicability of Rule 6 in such cases. Consequently, the demand for proportionate Cenvat credit was deemed baseless.

Furthermore, the case delved into the admissibility of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing sugar and molasses. The appellant maintained that the inputs on which Cenvat credit was availed were solely used for the production of dutiable final products, sugar, and molasses. This argument was pivotal in establishing that the procedure under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was not mandatory in their case. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and relevant legal precedents, upheld the appellant's position, emphasizing that Rule 6 did not apply in scenarios where only dutiable final products were manufactured.