9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 645 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - clearance of by-product - electricity sold to various companies - common inputs and input services used in manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The issue decided in the case of M/S. VENKATESHWARA POWER PROJECTS LTD., M/S. THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD., M/S. EID PARRY (INDIA) LTD., M/S. SRI SRIVSGAR SUGAR & AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX 2018 (11) TMI 913 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that there cannot be a demand of 6% of the value of exempted electricity sold outside the factory in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) of CCR simply on the ground that the appellant has failed to maintain separate account on receipt of input or input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, namely, Sugar and exempted goods, namely, electricity. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (A) regarding demand for 6% of the value of electricity sold. - Applicability of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to the generation of electricity from waste heat. - Judicial precedent and decisions relied upon by the appellant. - Defense of the impugned order by the learned AR. - Settlement of the issue in favor of the appellant by various decisions. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (A) regarding a demand for 6% of the value of electricity sold, as per an impugned order. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, generated electricity within the factory and sold the excess electricity produced. The demand was based on the allegation that common inputs/services were used for manufacturing electricity, an exempted product, without maintaining separate accounts as required by Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Asst. Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was further rejected by the Commissioner (A). The appellant argued that the impugned order ignored binding judicial precedent and that the electricity generated from waste heat in the manufacture of sponge iron did not involve availing CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that Rule 6(3) was not applicable as electricity is non-excisable goods, and the electricity generated was neither manufactured nor exempted goods. Relying on various decisions, the appellant asserted that maintaining separate accounts or paying an amount equal to 5% of the value of electricity sold did not apply in this case. The learned AR defended the impugned order, but the Tribunal found the issue settled in favor of the appellant by previous decisions. Notably, the Tribunal cited precedents where it was established that in cases of generating electricity from specific sources like waste heat or bagasse, Rule 6 was not applicable as the electrical energy produced was neither excisable nor exempted goods. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand for 6% of the value of electricity, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the settled legal position established by the cited decisions. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the settled legal position and precedents that supported the appellant's argument regarding the generation of electricity from waste heat and the inapplicability of Rule 6 in such circumstances.
|
