2017 (5) TMI 1138 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - common input services used in dutiable as well as exempted products - Revenue took the view that in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(2), of the CCR, 2004, the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods sold by them - Held that - since in the present case, the exempted final product has emerged as an unavoidable waste or by-product, compliance of provisions of rule 6(2) is impossible - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Availing Cenvat credit on common input services used for both dutiable and exempted products.
- Interpretation of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Treatment of iron ore fines as exempted goods and the requirement for reversal of 10% of the value of exempted goods.
- Applicability of Rule 6(3) when exempted goods emerge as unavoidable waste during manufacturing.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the availing of Cenvat credit on common input services by a manufacturer engaged in the production of sponge iron and iron ore fines. The Revenue contended that as the manufacturer did not maintain separate accounts for input services used in dutiable and exempted products, they were liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of the exempted goods under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original adjudicating authority upheld the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the manufacturer, setting aside the demands raised.

Upon hearing arguments, it was noted that the manufacturer had indeed availed credit on common input services without separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products. The demand was initially raised based on Rule 6(3) treating iron ore fines as a separate exempted finished product. The manufacturer argued that the iron ore fines were an unavoidable waste during the manufacturing process of sponge iron and should not be considered as separate final products requiring the reversal of 10% of the value of exempted goods.

The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including CCE Vs. Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., CCE Vs. Hygrade Pallets Ltd., and M/s SKS Ispat & Power Limited Vs. CCE, which favored the manufacturers in similar situations. It was emphasized that the conditions of Rule 6(3) apply when dutiable and exempted final products are consciously manufactured using common Cenvat credit. Since the exempted final product (iron ore fines) emerged as unavoidable waste, compliance with Rule 6(2) was deemed impossible. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, finding no error in the impugned order, and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the treatment of iron ore fines as exempted goods, the interpretation of Rule 6(2) and Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the applicability of these rules when exempted goods arise as unavoidable by-products during the manufacturing process. The judgment aligned with previous rulings and provided guidance on the proper application of Cenvat credit rules in such scenarios.