2023 (10) TMI 49 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - waste Met Coke generated during the course of sieving of Met Coke to be used in the manufacture of steel - common input services used for the said exempted product Met Coke as well as taxable goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules - HELD THAT - The Hon ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT in similar circumstances while examining the applicability of Rule 6(2) bagasse generated during the course of manufacture of sugar held In the present case it could not be pointed out as to whether any process in respect of Bagasse has been specified either in the Section or in the Chapter notice. In the absence thereof this deeming provision cannot be attracted. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty. It is found that subsequently this judgment has been followed in series of cases including by the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. AND CUS., RAIPUR VERSUS JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD. 2017 (7) TMI 1184 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT , wherein it is held that the waste Met Coke generated during the course of manufacture of sieving of iron ore fines cannot be subjected to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. There are no merit in the impugned order, consequently the same is set aside - appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the demand notice issued to recover cenvat credit on common input services used for the exempted product Met Coke, which was generated as waste during the screening/sorting process. The main issue is whether the waste Met Coke generated during the sieving process can be subjected to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Demand for cenvat credit on waste Met Coke:
The appellant had availed cenvat credit on common input services used for waste Met Coke generated during the screening/sorting process. The Department demanded recovery of the credit amount, alleging non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the waste Met Coke was residual and not used in the manufacture of final products. The appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. to support their position. The Tribunal noted that similar judgments had held that waste generated during certain processes cannot be subjected to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the impugned order demanding cenvat credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the waste Met Coke generated during the sieving process cannot be subjected to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment cited precedents and established legal principles to support this decision, ultimately setting aside the demand for cenvat credit on the waste Met Coke.