2007 (2) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Challenge to Recovery Order Under Cenvat Credit Rules Dismissed

The appellant's challenge to the recovery order under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 for not maintaining separate accounts of inputs used in exempted and ... Cenvat/Modvat Issues involved: Challenge to recovery order u/s Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 for failure to maintain separate accounts of inputs used in exempted and non-exempted final products.Summary:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing refined edible oil, challenged the recovery order of Rs. 29,330/- for not maintaining separate accounts of inputs used in exempted and non-exempted final products. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on chemicals used in the manufacturing process. The dispute arose regarding the clearance of 'acid oil' during a specific period without separate accounts as required by the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The Revenue contended that 8% of the total price of the 'acid oil' should be recovered due to the lack of separate accounts. The appellant argued that the inputs were intended for refined oil, not 'acid oil.'The authorities found that no separate accounts were maintained for inputs used in dutiable final products. As per Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, an amount equal to 8% of the total price of exempted final products became payable. The appellant contended that inputs were meant for refined edible oil, not exempted goods. The department argued that since no separate accounts were maintained and inputs were used for both exempted and dutiable items, the appellant was liable to pay 8% of the total price of exempted goods.The production of 'acid oil' was a regular by-product in the manufacturing process of refined oil. The appellant's intention to manufacture and sell 'acid oil' was attributed based on regular production and sale. The authorities correctly applied Rule 6(3)(b) for the recovery. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed under Rule 13(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order.In conclusion, the appellant's appeal was dismissed, and there was no interference with the recovery order.