9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 365 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - whether the appellants are liable to pay the amounts on the clearance of Sludge cleared during the period from April 2011 to January 2012 and August 2010 to March 2011 under Rule 6 and 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inasmuch as the appellants have availed cenvat credit on the common inputs used in the manufacture and clearance of the dutiable products of Paper and Paper Boards as well as the exempted product of Sludge - Held that - sludge is in the nature of by-product or waste and demand of amount of 10% on the value of the sludge under Rule 6(1)(i) of the said Rules 2004 is not sustainable. - Following decision of assessee s own previous case 2013 (12) TMI 928 - CESTAT CHENNAI - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Whether the appellants are liable to pay amounts on the clearance of Sludge under Rule 6 and 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Analysis: Issue 1: Liability to Pay Amounts on Sludge Clearance The Tribunal considered whether the appellants are liable to pay amounts on the clearance of Sludge during specific periods under the relevant rules and acts. The issue revolved around the appellants availing CENVAT credit on common inputs used in manufacturing both dutiable products and the exempted product of Sludge. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant. It analyzed the classification of Sludge under the Central Excise Tariff, emphasizing that goods must be subject to a duty of excise to be considered excisable. The definition of "exempted goods" under Rule 2(d) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was crucial in determining the liability. The Tribunal also discussed the applicability of Rule 6(1) regarding the allowance of CENVAT credit on inputs used for exempted goods. It cited relevant case laws and circulars to support its decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that Sludge was in the nature of a by-product or waste, and the demand for payment of 10% on its value under Rule 6(1)(i) was not sustainable. Relying on the previous decision and considering the Board's Manual and Circular, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed with consequential relief. The stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
