2019 (8) TMI 1172 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods which are used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted products - Decanter for Gluten - CPD (Flash Dryer) used for drying the Gluten - Tubular Dryer or Rotary Dryer used for drying maize fibre/Germ taken by them during the period November 2007 to April 2008 - Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004 - HELD THAT - The case of RANA SUGAR LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA 2012 (11) TMI 299 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI sought to be relied upon by the appellant was on a different footing where the sugar factory was manufacturing denatured alcohol which is dutiable and the intermediate product in the process of manufacturing was ethyl alcohol which was exempted. It has been held by the Tribunal that CENVAT Credit on the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of exempted intermediate product cannot be denied when the final product is dutiable. In the present case, the starch is the dutiable final product and gluten maize germ are final products which are exempted. What is sought to be denied is CENVAT Credit of capital goods on such machinery which is used for processing the exempted products after they are separated from the raw material. Ld. Counsel for the appellant sought to impress upon the Bench that the entire process is an integrated one and therefore CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the capital goods. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on capital goods used exclusively for manufacturing exempted products.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of the judgment in the case of Rana Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on capital goods used exclusively for manufacturing exempted products:
The appellant, a manufacturer of Maize Starch and Dextrine, was issued a show cause notice by the Revenue to disallow CENVAT Credit on capital goods (Decanter for Gluten, CPD Flash Dryer, and Tubular/Rotary Dryer) used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted products (Gluten, maize fibre, and Germ). The Revenue contended that as per Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004, no CENVAT Credit shall be allowed on capital goods used exclusively for the manufacture of exempted goods. The original authority, upon re-examination, confirmed the demand for recovery of CENVAT Credit along with interest and imposed penalties, which was affirmed by the first appellate authority.

2. Interpretation of Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:
The appellant argued that their manufacturing process is continuous and integrated, thus CENVAT Credit should not be denied on the disputed capital goods. They cited the case of Rana Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana, where it was held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied if capital goods/inputs are used in the process of manufacture of intermediate exempted goods further used in the manufacture of dutiable products. However, the Revenue maintained that the appellant used the disputed capital goods exclusively for processing exempted products after separation from the main product, hence CENVAT Credit was not permissible under Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004.

3. Applicability of the judgment in the case of Rana Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana:
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from Rana Sugar Ltd., noting that in Rana Sugar Ltd., the issue was about inputs and capital goods used in manufacturing an intermediate exempted product which was further used in producing a dutiable final product. In contrast, the present case involved capital goods used exclusively for processing exempted products after separation from the main product. The Tribunal held that even if the process is integrated, if machinery is used solely for processing exempted products, CENVAT Credit cannot be availed as per Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal, and confirmed that the appellant was not entitled to CENVAT Credit on the disputed capital goods used exclusively for processing exempted products. The judgment emphasized that the explicit provisions of Rule 6(4) of CCR 2004 must be adhered to, and the case of Rana Sugar Ltd. was not applicable in this context.