2017 (7) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 - Palladium - Platinum - case of the department is that both the products are exempted goods in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, therefore for removal of these goods, the appellant is required to pay 10% for the reason that they have availed CENVAT Credit in respect of certain services namely, Advertising Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Broadband services, Chartered Accountancy Services, Cleaning services, Courier services, GTA services - Held that - Rule 6(3) is applicable only in respect of manufactured goods, but if it is found that the goods sold by the appellant are traded goods, Rule 6(3) is not applicable as the trading goods are not manufactured exempted goods - both the lower authorities have not properly verified whether the goods sold by the appellant is a traded goods or it is manufactured by the appellant - matter requires reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in relation to exempted goods Palladium and Platinum.
- Determination of whether the goods sold by the appellant are manufactured exempted goods or traded goods.
- Verification of facts by lower authorities regarding the nature of goods sold by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding a demand of 10% of the value of exempted goods Palladium and Platinum under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The department contended that since the products were exempted goods under a specific notification, the appellant was required to pay 10% due to availing CENVAT Credit for various services. The appellant argued that they were engaged in the manufacture of Palladium and Platinum Catalyst, not exempted goods, as they were extracted from spent catalysts or purchased from the market. They claimed that the goods sold were trading goods, not manufactured exempted goods, and thus, the demand was not valid. The appellant highlighted that this crucial fact was overlooked by the lower authorities, rendering the entire order incorrect.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing that the appellant, by selling exempted goods, was obligated to pay 10% under Rule 6(3). The appellant's position was supported by citing relevant case laws. The Member (Judicial) carefully evaluated both sides' arguments and observed that the demand was based on the assumption that the goods sold were manufactured exempted goods, whereas the appellant contended they were trading goods. It was noted that the lower authorities failed to verify this crucial aspect. Rule 6(3) applies only to manufactured exempted goods, not trading goods. Therefore, the Member (Judicial) concluded that a proper verification was necessary to determine whether the goods in question were manufactured by the appellant or bought out as trading goods.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration and verification of whether the goods sold were manufactured by the appellant or traded goods. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurately determining the nature of the goods to apply Rule 6(3) correctly.