2018 (10) TMI 1465 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - credit attributable to inputs and input services used in the manufacture of Bagasse and sold outside the factory - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Held that - Both the authorities have held that in spite of the Explanation being attached to Rule 6 w.e.f. 01.03.2015 still the appellants are not liable to reverse 6% of the value of Bagasse sold - further, there is no manufacture involved in the process of bagasse which is a waste product - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against rejection of Order-in-Original regarding recovery of cenvat credit for Bagasse clearance without payment.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order rejecting their appeal and upholding the Order-in-Original related to the clearance of Bagasse without payment of cenvat credit. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of excisable goods, including Sugar and Molasses. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice demanding 6% of the value of Bagasse cleared without payment, along with interest and proposed penalty. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the recovery of a proportionate cenvat credit amount, interest, and a penalty. The Department appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, leading to the present case.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, applied to the clearance of Bagasse/Press mud for a consideration, even though they were non-excisable. The representative for the assessee contended that the taxable event for excise duty is the manufacture of goods in India, and non-excisable goods not manufactured do not fall under Rule 6(1) despite the amendment. The representative emphasized that sugar companies do not manufacture exempted goods like Bagasse, which is an agricultural waste. The assessee reversed a proportionate cenvat credit for exempted inputs and input services, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, it was found that the appellants were not liable to reverse 6% of the value of Bagasse sold, as there was no manufacturing involved in the process of Bagasse, which is considered a waste product. The decisions cited by the assessee supported their position, and the impugned order was upheld based on the favorable legal precedents. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, concluding the case.