2017 (4) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

N/N. 67/95, dated 16-3-1995 - intermediate goods, aluminium slabs - captive consumption - Held that - the exclusion made under sub-clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 read with proviso to N/N. 67/95 makes it clear that the exemption for captive consumption of intermediate products has been correctly claimed by the appellant in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur regarding duty liability of intermediate goods for captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95.
- Eligibility for captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95 in connection with final products exempted under Notification No. 6/2006.
- Interpretation of proviso in Notification No. 67/95 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Comparison with Tribunal decision in Thermo Cables Ltd. case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, concerning the duty liability of intermediate goods, specifically aluminium slabs, for captive consumption exemption under Notification No. 67/95. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing aluminium products, were availing Cenvat credit and cleared finished products claiming benefits under Notification No. 6/2006 against an International Competitive Bidding. A dispute arose regarding the captive consumption exemption for intermediate goods, leading to a demand of penalty imposed by the original authority.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the appellants cleared final products without duty payment under an exemption and claimed benefit under Notification No. 6/2006. It was argued that the intermediate product used in manufacturing exempt final products should also be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 67/95 due to a proviso related to captive consumption. The appellants contended that they met the obligations of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, making them eligible for the exemption under the proviso of Notification No. 67/95.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The respondent argued that the exemption for the final product itself was not definitively established, questioning the automatic application of the proviso in Notification No. 67/95. However, the Tribunal observed that the original authority did not address the eligibility of exemption for the final product under Notification No. 6/2006. It was clarified that the dispute focused on the exemption for intermediate goods under Notification No. 67/95, which, when read with Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, supported the appellant's claim for captive consumption exemption.

4. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the Thermo Cables Ltd. case, which dealt with similar circumstances, to support its analysis. By interpreting the proviso in Notification No. 67/95 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Tribunal found that the appellant correctly claimed the exemption for captive consumption of intermediate products. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked merit and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.