2016 (8) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of the Silico Manganese slag and Ferro Chrome slag come into existence as a residue/ waste product - slag emerged during the course of manufacture of the main final product are exempted from payment of Central Excise duty - Held that - since, the appellant had no intention to manufacture slag, the same, should not be considered as excisable goods. Since the slag seized to the excisable goods, the question of dutibility or exemption does not arise. Therefore, the embargo created in Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for payment of amount equal to 5%, 6% or 10% of the value of exempted goods has no application in the circumstances of the present case. It is found that the CBEC in Chapter 5 at paragraph 3.7 in the Supplementary Instructions 2005 have clarified that Cenvat credit is admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, residue or by-product. Therefore, confirmation of amount under Rule 6(3) of the Rules by the authorities below is not in conformity with the cenvat statute. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over availing cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of slag.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of amount equal to value of exempted goods.
3. Consideration of slag as excisable goods and dutiability exemption.
4. Applicability of CBEC clarification on Cenvat credit for waste, residue, or by-product.
5. Comparison with precedents like Haryana Steel & Power and ISMT Ltd. judgments on slag as a by-product.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of cenvat credit by an appellant engaged in manufacturing Silico Manganese and Ferro Chrome, leading to the emergence of slag as a residue. The Central Excise department contested the cenvat credit claim, citing Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which required payment equal to a percentage of the value of exempted goods. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the department's decision, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

Upon examination, the Tribunal noted that the slag emerged involuntarily during the manufacturing process of the final product, indicating that the appellant had no intention to produce the slag as a separate excisable good. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the slag should not be considered excisable goods, thereby negating the applicability of the duty or exemption. The Tribunal referenced the CBEC clarification, stating that Cenvat credit is permissible for inputs contained in waste, residue, or by-product, further supporting the appellant's position.

Moreover, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments such as Haryana Steel & Power and ISMT Ltd., which held that slag arising as a by-product during the manufacture of the main final product should not be classified as the production of exempted goods. In line with these precedents and the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the Rules, the Tribunal concluded that the confirmation of the amount under the rule by the lower authorities was not in accordance with the cenvat statute. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the involuntary nature of slag production, the non-classification of slag as excisable goods, the applicability of Cenvat credit for waste products, and alignment with established legal precedents regarding the treatment of by-products in the manufacturing process.