2017 (10) TMI 9 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6 of the Credit Rules - Held that - in assessee s own case for the earlier period, the issue has came up before the Tribunal in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore 2006 (9) TMI 467 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , where it was held that There is no sale of steam in transfer of steam between two divisions. Therefore, there is no sale price of steam available in such cases. Consequently, the question of reversing 8% of the sale price of steam cannot apply - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against order-in-original No.50/2015 dated 26.10.2015 regarding payment of 10% value of steam cleared due to lack of separate inventory for services taken.

Analysis:
The Department filed an appeal against the order-in-original No.50/2015 dated 26.10.2015, concerning the period from April 2005 to June 2006. The case involved the manufacturing of various products falling under Chapter 55 and 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, with the assessee availing cenvat credit on duty paid inputs and service tax on input service. The issue arose when it was discovered during an audit that no separate inventory for services taken was maintained for the exempted category of steam, as required by Rule 6 of the Credit Rules. Consequently, the respondent was asked to pay 10% of the value of steam cleared. The Commissioner, in response to the protest by the Respondent, dropped the demand. The Department, aggrieved by this decision, filed the present appeal.

During the proceedings, both counsels were heard, and it was noted that a similar issue had been addressed in the Tribunal in a previous case involving Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore. The Tribunal's decision in the earlier case highlighted that exhausted steam or residual steam, considered a by-product, did not attract the provisions of Rule 57CC(1). The Tribunal's rulings in various cases supported the view that certain demands, such as 8% of the sale price of milk and ghee, were not sustainable in law. Additionally, it was clarified that the expression "steam used for any other purposes" covered specific activities, making certain demands baseless. The absence of a machinery provision to demand 8% of the sale price under Rule 57CC(1) further weakened the Department's case.

Based on the previous order and the legal precedents cited, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Department's appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner to drop the demand for payment of 10% of the value of steam cleared.