9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 494 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty on generation of the floor sweeping as waste - refund of amount paid during investigation - denial of cenvat credit - Held that - The appellant is a manufacturer of biscuit and during the course of manufacture of biscuit these floor sweeping emerges which are the waste for the appellant. Although, these floor sweeping gets certain value, but it cannot be said the appellants are manufacturing the said floor sweepings. Therefore, relying on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Geltec Ltd. (2011 (4) TMI 212 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), I hold that appellants are not required to pay duty on these floor sweeping being waste. Further, I hold that appellants are not required to reverse Cenvat credit attributable to generation of these floor sweepings as same has been emerged during the course of manufacture of final product i.e. biscuits. In these terms, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the refund claim on the duty paid on the floor sweeping of the appellant - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of input credit on floor sweeping in the manufacture of final product. 2. Rejection of refund claim on duty paid for floor sweeping. Analysis: 1. The appellant contested the denial of input credit on the floor sweeping used in the manufacture of the final product. The revenue argued that the inputs in the floor sweeping were not eligible for Cenvat credit, necessitating the reversal of the credit. Additionally, the appellant had paid duty on the floor sweeping during the investigation, later filing a refund claim which was rejected by the lower authorities. The appellant challenged these decisions before the tribunal. 2. The appellant, a biscuit manufacturer, explained that certain inputs like vanaspati and maida were used in the manufacturing process, leading to floor sweeping that was utilized as animal feed. The revenue contended that these inputs in the floor sweeping were non-excisable and should be reversed. Citing the case of Britannia Industries, where floor sweeping was deemed non-excisable waste, the appellant sought relief from the requirement to reverse the Cenvat credit and the refund claim rejection. 3. The appellant's counsel referenced the case of CCE vs. Geltec Ltd. to argue that inputs in waste do not need to be reversed. They asserted that since the floor sweeping emerged during biscuit manufacturing, it should not lead to Cenvat credit reversal. The appellant also highlighted a favorable decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a subsequent period. Conversely, the revenue relied on the Sahni Strips & Wires case to support their stance that non-excisable floor sweeping did not entitle the appellant to Cenvat credit on related inputs. 4. After hearing both parties and considering the arguments presented, the tribunal made a decision. The tribunal acknowledged that the floor sweeping generated during biscuit manufacturing was waste for the appellant, even though it had some value. Relying on the Geltec Ltd. case, the tribunal ruled that the appellant was not obligated to pay duty on the floor sweeping as waste. Furthermore, the tribunal concluded that the appellant did not need to reverse the Cenvat credit linked to the production of the floor sweeping, as it was a byproduct of the biscuit manufacturing process. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the refund claim for duty paid on the floor sweeping. 5. In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant based on the tribunal's findings and interpretation of relevant legal precedents.
|
