9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 966 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - common input/capital goods/input services used dutiable product and exempted product - Bagasse emerges as a waste/by-product which was being cleared by the Appellant at Nil rate of duty in the course of manufacture of dutiable Sugar & Molasses - recovery u/r 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - penalty u/r 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. Held that - The Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the matter of DSCL Sugar Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT has clearly laid down that bagasse is agricultural waste of sugarcane and waste and residue of agricultural products during the process of manufacture of goods cannot be said to be result of any process. There is no manufacturing process involved in Bagasse s production. Bagasse is not goods but merely a waste or by-product therefore Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 is not applicable in the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Availing CENVAT credit on "Bagasse" without maintaining separate account. 2. Demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on "Bagasse" under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Applicability of Rule 6(1) to non-excisable goods like "Bagasse." 4. Interpretation of "exempted goods" and "final products" under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Validity of Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX in relation to "Bagasse." 6. Consistency of decisions on Rule 6 applicability to waste/by-products. 7. Impact of Rule 6(3) on waste/by-products like "Bagasse." Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal due to the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit on "Bagasse" by the Appellant. The Appellant contended that "Bagasse" is a waste/by-product and should not require CENVAT credit reversal. Various decisions were cited to support this argument. 2. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand for the period before March 2015 but confirmed it for the subsequent period, citing an amendment in Rule 6. The Commissioner upheld this decision, leading to the appeal. The Appellant argued against the reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6, emphasizing the waste nature of "Bagasse." 3. The Revenue supported the impugned order, referring to Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX, which clarifies the treatment of "Bagasse" as exempted goods for credit reversal purposes under Rule 6(1). The Revenue's stance was that the Appellant's appeal should be rejected based on this clarification. 4. The explanation added to Rule 6(1) expanded the scope to include non-excisable goods cleared for consideration, like "Bagasse." The Supreme Court's decision on "Bagasse" being agricultural waste and not a result of a manufacturing process was highlighted to argue against Rule 6 applicability. 5. The Tribunal's consistent view, as seen in various cited cases, was that Rule 6 does not apply to waste/by-products. The Tribunal emphasized that CENVAT credit should not be denied for inputs contained in waste or by-products, as clarified in CBEC Circular. 6. The Tribunal, in a similar case, allowed the appeal by ruling that Rule 6(3) does not apply to waste or by-products. The judgment highlighted that CENVAT credit should be admissible for inputs used in the manufacture of final products, even indirectly, including waste or by-products. 7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that Rule 6(3) does not apply to waste or by-products like "Bagasse." The decision was based on the consistent interpretation that CENVAT credit should not be denied for such materials.
|
