Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (10) TMI 317 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Whether demand of Rs. 1,87,150/- on clearances of zinc dross/ ash under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is rightly raised.
2. Whether demand of Rs. 1,55,513/- on clearance of old plant, which consists of zinc parts, has been rightly made.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of ERW Steel Tubes/ Pipes, availed cenvat credit on duties paid on inputs, capital goods, and input services. The issue arose when it was observed that the appellant sold zinc dross/ ash without duty payment during a specific period. The demand was raised under Rule 6(3)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, requiring payment equal to 6% of the price of such zinc dross/ ash. The appellant contested this demand, citing waste product status and relying on a Supreme Court ruling. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that Rule 6(3) is not attracted to waste products, thus deciding in favor of the appellant.

2. Another demand of Rs. 1,55,513/- was raised on the clearance of old plant parts, alleging duty payable. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand based on a Board Circular treating certain goods as exempted for credit reversal purposes. The appellant argued that no duty arises as the plant was acquired without credit. The Tribunal found that duty cannot be demanded on parts of the old plant, as they are not manufactured products by the appellant. Lack of evidence from the Revenue regarding credit taken on the old plant further supported the appellant's case. Consequently, this issue was also decided in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential benefits to the appellant. The judgment clarified the applicability of Rule 6(3) to waste products and highlighted the necessity of evidence when demanding duty on specific items.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates