2017 (5) TMI 1451 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - Emergence of Compost - whether manufactured product or not? - dumping of the viz. press-mud spent wash and boiler ash in the compost pit - Compost is capable of use as fertilizer in farms - applicability of Rule 6 of CCR - Held that - the issue is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the case of 2014 (8) TMI 322 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that if the Commissioner (A) has dropped the demand on merit as well as on point of limitation and if the department has filed appeal before the Tribunal only challenging the findings of the Commissioner (A) dropping the demand on merit and in the appeal no challenge is made to the findings of the Commissioner (A) dropping the demand on limitation then the appeal filed by the department will not survive - there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) - appeal dismissed - decided against Department.

Summary

Issues:
Revenue's appeal against Commissioner (A) order allowing the appeal of the assessee regarding the demand for payment of duty on compost manure.

Analysis:
1. Manufacture of Compost: The case involved the manufacture of compost by the assessee using press-mud, spent wash, and boiler ash dumped in a compost pit. The Revenue alleged non-compliance with Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, leading to a demand for payment of duty on compost manure cleared without duty payment from September 2008 to February 2011.

2. Legal Arguments: The Revenue contended that the assessee should pay 5% or 10% of the sale value of compost manure as per Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. However, the respondent argued that compost is not a manufactured product and is non-excisable, citing various judgments supporting their position.

3. Judicial Precedents: The respondent relied on several judgments, including CCE vs. Spade Elektro, CCE vs. Echjay Forging Pvt. Ltd., and others, to establish that compost is not a final product for CENVAT credit purposes, and Rule 6 of the CCR does not apply to compost.

4. Appeal Grounds: The respondent contended that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it did not challenge the impugned order on limitation. They argued that the Commissioner (A) had rightly held the demand unsustainable on both merit and limitation grounds.

5. Decision: After considering submissions and case laws, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee by previous decisions and found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (A)'s order. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that compost was not a manufactured product subject to duty payment under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The decision was based on established legal precedents and the lack of grounds to challenge the Commissioner (A)'s order.