2022 (2) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - manufacture of electricity which was partly utilised in the factory and partly sold to Government and other parties - dutiable as well as exempt goods - applicability of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not - HELD THAT - As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the issue is no longer res integra. This Bench relying upon the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT and GULARIA CHINI MILLS AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2013 (7) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has decided the issue in favour of the very same appellant albeit in respect of another unit of the appellant. Following the ratio of the above decisions, it can be opined that the appeal survives on merits as well as limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of credit under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for utilizing inputs and input services in the generation of electricity.
2. Department's contention regarding the turnover of dutiable items and GTA services.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation for issuance of show-cause notice.

Analysis:

1. The appellants, engaged in sugar manufacturing, established a bagasse-based unit for generating electricity partly utilized in the factory and sold to others. The Revenue claimed credit reversal under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants argued for availing credit only on inputs used in manufacturing dutiable goods, not electricity generation. The impugned order confirmed proposals in the show-cause notice.

2. The appellants contended that raw materials like sugarcane, chemicals, etc., are solely for sugar production, not electricity. They criticized the Department for overlooking dutiable items' turnover and misinterpreting GTA services' utilization. They emphasized bagasse as the sole input for electricity generation. Citing legal precedents, the appellants argued against the Department's assumptions.

3. The appellants challenged the invocation of the extended limitation period, citing proper disclosure of invoices and returns. They referred to various legal cases to support their stance. Upon review, the Tribunal found the issue settled in previous cases favoring the appellants. Relying on past judgments, including DSCL Sugars Limited and Gularia Chinni Mills Limited, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if applicable.

This judgment clarifies the applicability of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 concerning credit reversal for electricity generation inputs, the importance of turnover analysis for different goods, and the limitations on invoking extended periods for show-cause notices. The decision highlights the significance of legal precedents in resolving tax disputes and upholding taxpayers' rights while ensuring compliance with tax laws.