2017 (7) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs used in the manufacture of Dry Battery Cells - waste batteries - Rule 6 of CCR - Held that - Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 mandates that where a manufacturer manufactures both dutiable and exempted goods and used common input for manufacture of such two types of goods, then he has to maintain separate records and cenvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods should not be availed as cenvat credit. In the present case, Since some quantities of batteries (less than 1%) are not capable of being sold, being declared as waste, as a result of quality control test, the same were dumped inside the factory. It cannot be said that the waste batteries are exempted goods inasmuch as the same are neither chargeable to nil rate of duty nor are exempted in terms of the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the waste batteries are not exempted from payment of duty, the embargo created in Rule 6 of the said rules will not be applicable for payment of amount/ reversal of cenvat credit in the generation of the waste batteries. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 on inputs used in manufacture of Dry Battery Cells.

The judgment involves the denial of Cenvat credit under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the inputs used in the manufacture of Dry Battery Cells. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Dry Cell Battery, availed Cenvat credit for inputs used in the final product. A small percentage of rejected batteries were classified as 'other waste and scrap.' The department argued that the appellant must reverse the Cenvat credit attributable to inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. The appellant contended that waste batteries cannot be considered exempted goods as they are neither exempted from excise duty nor subject to nil duty rates. The appellant argued that Rule 6 does not apply as they do not manufacture exempted goods. The tribunal analyzed Rule 6, which prohibits Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods. The tribunal noted that since waste batteries were not exempted from duty payment, Rule 6 did not apply to the reversal of Cenvat credit for waste batteries. The tribunal referenced previous decisions where it was held that the appellant was not required to reverse Cenvat credit on waste batteries. The tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on waste batteries.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the denial of Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing Dry Battery Cells. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that since waste batteries were not exempted from duty payment, the appellant was not required to reverse the Cenvat credit on waste batteries. The tribunal referred to previous decisions supporting this interpretation and set aside the demand for reversal of Cenvat credit on waste batteries, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant.