2015 (10) TMI 1699 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - whether 5% amount under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is required to be paid by the appellant on Bagasse cleared by the appellant at Nil rate of duty when CENVAT credit is taken on the inputs - Held that - It is observed from reply dated 28.06.2011, filed by the appellant to the show cause notice that sugarcane is pushed into a cane crushing Mill to get Bagasse waste and sugarcane raw juice. It has not been brought on record as to what inputs, on which credit is taken is used during the process of crushing sugarcane into waste. The credit on chemicals etc. is taken for converting sugarcane raw juice to commercial sugar or molasses which are cleared on payment of duty. In the absence of any evidence on record, to show credit taken inputs used in the making of Bagasse, the ratio of High Court s order in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-III vs. Nirma Limited (2012 (10) TMI 138 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) will be applicable. - The assessee in the process of manufacturing soap uses acid slurry and in the process Spent sulphuric acid gets generated as a bye product. Though the products may be different, the ratio laid down by this Court would apply to the facts of the present case. We, therefore, do not think that the Tribunal committed any error in holding against the revenue. - The order passed by CESTAT Delhi, in the case of Indian Potash Limited vs. CCE (2012 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) is on the same issue - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether 5% amount under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is required to be paid by the appellant on Bagasse cleared at Nil rate of duty when CENVAT credit is taken on the inputs.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order upholding the requirement of paying 5% under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on Bagasse cleared at Nil rate of duty. The appellant argued based on case laws that no payment was necessary post an amendment in the Central Excise Act. The Revenue defended the order stating Bagasse should be treated as exempted goods post the amendment. The Tribunal observed the need for maintaining separate records for inputs used in manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods. Lack of evidence on credit taken inputs used in making Bagasse led to the application of a High Court's order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing a case involving different products but applying the same principle.

In the case of Indian Potash Limited, the CESTAT Delhi allowed the appeal concerning Bagasse, emphasizing the impossibility of maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in sugar production and Bagasse. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, following the reasoning of the CESTAT Delhi and the Gujarat High Court. Consequently, the appellant's appeal was allowed based on the same issue addressed in the CESTAT Delhi's judgment.

This detailed analysis provides insights into the legal judgment, focusing on the issues raised, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on relevant case laws and legal principles.