2017 (1) TMI 1182 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of credit - Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - Levy of duty on by-product or a waste - emergence of slag as a by-product - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Hariyana Steel and Power vs. CCE 2015 (11) TMI 771 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that the slag emerged as byproduct / waste during manufacture of sponge iron does not amount to manufacture of exempted goods and therefore, there is no need for reversal of credit as required in terms of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against demand for non-payment of duty on exempted goods
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of Supreme Court rulings on maintaining separate records for unintended byproducts
- Consideration of various judicial precedents on the issue

Analysis:
The case involved three appeals against different impugned orders for various periods, with identical issues. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing pig iron and slags, were found to have cleared ungranulated slag without paying duty. The demand was based on Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, amounting to different sums in each appeal. The original authority confirmed the demands with interest and imposed penalties, leading to appeals before the Commissioner (A). The appellants argued that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in a specific case, stating that separate records for unintended byproducts were not required. They cited relevant judicial precedents supporting their stance, emphasizing that the slag emerged during the manufacturing process did not amount to exempted goods. The Tribunal, considering the cited decisions, ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., emphasizing the impossibility of maintaining separate records for unintended byproducts used in the final product's manufacture. They also referred to the Tribunal's decision in Hariyana Steel and Power vs. CCE, supporting their argument that the slag emerging as a byproduct did not constitute exempted goods. The Tribunal, following the cited judicial precedents, concluded that the issue was decisively settled in favor of the appellants, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.

In line with the judicial precedents cited by the appellants, the Tribunal found that the issue of maintaining separate records for unintended byproducts had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court and previous Tribunal decisions. The appellant's argument that the demand under Rule 6(3) was untenable was supported by the rulings, indicating that the emergence of slag during manufacturing did not require credit reversal. The Tribunal, after thorough consideration of the legal principles and precedents, ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the demands and allowing the appeals with any necessary consequential relief.