2014 (9) TMI 334 - HC - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit on capital goods used in energy saving project - denial as the capital goods were used in the manufacture of exempted product (Ammonia) exclusively - Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that the respondent-manufacturer was entitled to avail of Cenvat credit on capital goods on the premise that such capital goods were used for manufacture of not only Ammonia used for manufacture of fertilizer which was exempted from duty but also in the process manufactured a byproduct namely, carbon dioxide which was sold in the open market after payment of duty and that therefore, the limitation contained in Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply - Held that - Following decision of Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing Cenvat credit on capital goods used in manufacturing processes.

Issue 1: Maintainability of appeal before the High Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act:

The appeal before the High Court was challenged on the grounds of maintainability under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The respondent contended that since the issue pertained to the rate of duty payable, the appeal should lie before the Supreme Court. The respondent relied on decisions of the Karnataka High Court to support this argument. On the other hand, the department argued that the appeal was indeed maintainable before the High Court as it did not involve any question of duty or other matters excluded under Section 35L of the Act. The Court examined the provisions of Section 35L and 35G of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that appeals related to the determination of questions concerning the rate of duty or the value of goods must be directed to the Supreme Court. The Court concluded that the appeal in question did not involve such questions and therefore was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding availing Cenvat credit on capital goods used in manufacturing processes:

The main dispute between the department and the manufacturer revolved around the interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department contended that the manufacturer, who had received capital goods for manufacturing fertilizer, availed Cenvat credit on these goods without paying duty. The department argued that since the capital goods were used in manufacturing an exempt product (fertilizer), the manufacturer was not entitled to claim Cenvat credit. Conversely, the manufacturer argued that during the production of Ammonia, a by-product, Carbon dioxide, was also generated and sold in the market after paying duty. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the manufacturer, stating that Rule 6(4) did not disentitle the manufacturer from claiming the credit. The Court noted that the central question was whether Cenvat credit was available as per Rule 6(4) and concluded that this issue did not pertain to the rate of duty or the value of goods for duty collection. The Court admitted the appeal to consider whether the manufacturer was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on capital goods used in the manufacturing process involving both Ammonia and Carbon dioxide.