2013 (12) TMI 1036 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on Bio-compost manufacturing site dispute

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the manufacturing site of Bio-compost and Bio-super was not part of the distillery unit. It ... Benefit of Notification No.4/2006 - Bagasse and Spent Wash processed to produce Bio-compost and Bio-super – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The contention that the site at which the products were manufactured was part of the distillery only for the reason that the sales from that site is shown cannot be accepted – Relying upon CCE Tirunelveli Vs Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - excisability of Bio-compost and demand under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules in respect of chemicals used in Bio-compost was considered - The situation under Rule 6 of the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be any different - Pre-deposit of dues waived till the disposal – Stay granted. Issues:1. Whether the manufacturing site of Bio-compost and Bio-super is part of the distillery unit.2. Whether the demand to pay an amount based on the value of these products is valid.3. Whether Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies to the situation.4. Admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of waste products.5. Whether the appeal should be admitted without any pre-deposit.Analysis:Issue 1:The appellant argued that the site where Bio-compost and Bio-super were manufactured was not part of the distillery premises but located 10 kilometers away. The contention was that the demand to pay an amount based on the value of these products was invalid as they were not cleared from the factory where CENVAT credit was taken.Issue 2:The Revenue contended that the manufacturing site of Bio-compost and Bio-super was part of the distillery unit, and since Bagasse was not considered a waste item but an excisable product, a payment based on the price of the products should be made as per Rule 6.Issue 3:The appellant relied on the CBEC Manual, emphasizing that CENVAT credit is admissible for inputs contained in waste products and that credit should not be denied if inputs are used in any intermediate or final product, even if exempt from duty. Therefore, the appellant argued against the reversal of any amount under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Issue 4:The Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue's contention that the site where the products were manufactured was part of the distillery unit solely based on financial records. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal found that excisability of Bio-compost was considered, and the demand under Rule 6 of the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be treated similarly.Issue 5:After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of dues arising from the order and imposed a stay on the collection of such dues during the pendency of the appeal. The decision was based on the similarity of the situation under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to a previous case regarding excisability of Bio-compost.This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decision on each matter.