2018 (7) TMI 982 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - electricity generated for own use in the manufacture of dutiable products - electricity sold outside to UPPCL - demand under Rule 6(3) of the CCR 2004 - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of M/S. NANGLAMAL SUGAR COMPLEX VERSUS CCE, NEW DELHI (VICE-VERSA) 2017 (1) TMI 413 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where reliance was placed in the case of DSM Sugar Mills Ltd., 2014 (7) TMI 531 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where the Tribunal has held that electricity is not an excisable good and hence, in respect of the sale of the electricity to U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules would not be applicable - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Demand raised under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for electricity sold to UPPCL.
- Interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b)(3)(i) and Rule 14 of Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of Rule 6(3) read with Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Whether electricity can be treated as excisable goods.
- Comparison with previous judgments regarding similar issues.

Analysis:

The judgment deals with an appeal filed against an Order-in-Original raising a demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for electricity sold to UPPCL. The assessee, a manufacturer of Sugar and Molasses, used waste product 'Bagasse' to generate electricity for their own use. The demand was based on the value of electricity sold outside. The appellant argued that a similar issue had been decided in their favor in a previous case. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions involving similar issues and held that electricity is not excisable goods, thus the provisions of Rule 6(3) do not apply to electricity sold by the sugar mill to U.P. Power Corporation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the precedent set by previous judgments.

The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule 6(3)(b)(3)(i) and Rule 14 of Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue claimed duty amounting to a specific percentage of the value of electricity sold, along with interest and penalty. However, the Tribunal, following the precedent set by earlier cases, found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants.

The judgment also delved into the applicability of Rule 6(3) read with Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. By citing past judgments and the interpretation of whether electricity can be considered excisable goods, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Rule 6(3) do not apply to electricity sold by the sugar mill to U.P. Power Corporation. This interpretation was crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the interpretation of relevant rules and previous judgments on similar issues. By establishing that electricity is not excisable goods, the Tribunal set aside the demand raised under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants.