2022 (7) TMI 9 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - exempted product/by-product - Silica Sand and Ball Clay generated as by product during the course of mining of Lignite and clearance thereon - HELD THAT - The issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided in the appellant s own case in GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD VERSUS C.C.E. S.T. -VADODARA-II 2021 (10) TMI 307 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD where it was held that Once it is established that the product in question are by-product then it is settled in respect of by-product demand under Rule 6 will not sustain. Accordingly, in the present case also, Silica Sand and Ball Clay being a by-product, no demand under Rule 6 shall sustain. It is found that the same facts are involved in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Whether the appellant is required to pay an amount on clearance of Silica Sand and Ball Clay, which is generated as a by-product during the course of mining of Lignite and clearance thereon.

Analysis:
1. Issue of By-Product Classification: The primary issue in the judgment revolves around determining whether Silica Sand and Ball Clay are to be considered as by-products of the main mining activity of Lignite. The tribunal analyzed the nature of the work contracted with the contractor, emphasizing the excavation process involved in mining Lignite, which unavoidably leads to the removal of overburden containing Silica Sand and Ball Clay. The judgment highlighted that the excavation of Lignite necessitates the removal of the upper layer, resulting in the extraction of the mentioned by-products. The tribunal also considered a chart presented by the appellant indicating that the main product, Lignite, constitutes approximately 98% to 99% of the total, with Silica Sand and Ball Clay forming a small percentage, further supporting the classification of the latter as by-products.

2. Legal Precedents and Cenvat Credit: The judgment delves into the legal aspect of Cenvat credit admissibility concerning inputs contained in by-products, waste, or refuse. Referring to para 3.7 of Chapter 5 of CBEC's manual, the tribunal established that Cenvat credit cannot be denied for inputs used in the manufacture of final products, even if indirectly related. The judgment cited various legal precedents to support the argument that once a product is classified as a by-product, demands under Rule 6 would not be sustainable. By applying this legal principle, the tribunal concluded that since Silica Sand and Ball Clay were deemed by-products, no demand under Rule 6 could be upheld.

3. Application of Precedent: The tribunal referenced a prior judgment involving similar facts in the appellant's own case to support its decision. By relying on the ratio decidendi of the previous judgment, where the issue of by-product classification was settled in favor of the appellant, the tribunal found that the same principles applied to the present case. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal based on the established legal reasoning and precedent.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the classification of Silica Sand and Ball Clay as by-products in the context of mining Lignite, considered legal precedents regarding Cenvat credit admissibility, and applied a previous ruling to decide in favor of the appellant. The detailed examination of the contractual work nature, ratio of main product to by-products, and legal principles ensured a comprehensive and well-founded decision in this case.