2022 (4) TMI 1360 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - press mud/compose emerging as a byproduct - exempted goods or not - common inputs and input services - non-maintenance of separate records as required under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules - HELD THAT - On going through records of the case and the ratio of the cases cited by the appellants. It is found that the issue is no longer res-integra. Apex Court in the case of M/S BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 2019 (5) TMI 972 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT has enunciated the principal that Bagasse/ Press mud produced during the course of manufacture of sugar cannot be treated as exempted products and the provision of Rule 6 of Central Excise Rule, 2004 cannot be applied. This Tribunal has been consistent in holding this view. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are required to pay 6% of the value of compost under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules for not maintaining separate records.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal by a sugar manufacturing company against the imposition of duty demand and penalty for not maintaining separate records for press mud/compost under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. The Department contended that press mud, a byproduct, is exempted, and demanded payment. The appellants argued that byproducts like press mud are not final products and thus not covered under Rule 6. They cited various case laws to support their stance.

The advocate for the appellants referred to judgments like Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd and DSCL Sugar Ltd to argue that byproducts like press mud are not manufactured products and do not fall under Rule 6. The Department's representative reiterated the findings of the Impugned Order. The issue for decision was whether the appellants must reverse 6% of the value of press mud under Rule 6 due to common inputs and services used.

The Member (Technical) analyzed the case and cited precedents like Balrampur Chini Ltd and DSCL Sugar Ltd to conclude that press mud during sugar manufacture cannot be treated as exempted products. The Tribunal's consistent view was supported by judgments like Shree Narmada Khand Udyog, Chhatrapati SSK Ltd, and a Final Order dated 09.11.2021. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law.

In summary, the judgment revolved around whether the appellants were liable to pay 6% of the value of compost under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules due to the generation of press mud as a byproduct. The Member (Technical) relied on legal precedents to rule in favor of the appellants, stating that press mud during sugar manufacture does not fall under the scope of Rule 6. The decision set aside the duty demand and penalty imposed, providing relief to the appellants based on established legal principles and previous tribunal judgments.