2017 (4) TMI 597 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - emergence of exempted by-product - calcined lime - case of Department is that calcined is also manufactured goods therefore Cenvat credit attributed to the quantity of calcined lime cleared without payment of duty is required to be reversed - Held that - calcined lime is generated unavoidably during the course of manufacture of lime - Rule 6(3) is not applicable in case of calcined lime which is by product in the present case - credit allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Calcined lime as manufactured goods, reversal of Cenvat credit, applicability of Rule 6(3) CCR, 2004, by-product or waste classification, admissibility of Cenvat credit on waste/by-product, interpretation of legal provisions and circulars.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of calcined lime, generated during the manufacture of lime, as either manufactured goods or a by-product/waste. The Respondent, engaged in lime manufacturing, availed Cenvat credit for LDO used in electricity generation. The Revenue contended that calcined lime, cleared without duty payment, should reverse the Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) CCR, 2004, as it constituted manufactured goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially allowed the appeal, leading the Revenue to appeal further.

The Revenue, represented by Shri. Sanjay Hasija, argued that calcined lime qualifies as manufactured goods, citing relevant legal precedents like Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd and Ajanta Marble & Chemical Industries. On the other hand, the Respondent's counsel, Shri. Roshil Nichani, asserted that calcined lime is an unavoidable by-product of lime production and should be considered waste, citing Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zint Ltd and CCE, CSt. Raigad Vs. M/s. Ispat Metallics(lndia) Ltd as supporting judgments.

After considering both parties' submissions and the record, the Member (Judicial) analyzed the nature of calcined lime's generation during lime manufacturing. It was determined that since calcined lime is a by-product of the manufacturing process, Rule 6(3) denying credit on inputs for exempted goods did not apply, as clarified in a Board Circular dated 3-4-2000. The judgment referenced legal precedents such as Hindustan Zint Ltd and Anil Starch Vs. CCE to support the conclusion that Rule 6(3) was not applicable to calcined lime in this case. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, with the case disposed of accordingly.