2014 (3) TMI 554 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's Acknowledgment of Exempted Products Leads to Waiver and Stay of Recovery

Synthite Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore

The Tribunal found that the appellant's reversal of CENVAT credit implied acknowledgment of the by-products as exempted final products, despite their ... Availment of CENVAT Credit - Non maintenance of separate accounts - Assessee were manufacturing and clearing both dutiable and exempted products and also availing CENVAT credit on common input services without maintaining separate accounts - appellant submits that products chilly seeds, seed oil and spent chilly are only by-products and not final products to attract the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that:- On the one hand, it is their case that chilly seeds, seed oil and spent chilly are by-products which should not be considered as final products for purposes of Rule 6 of the CCR 2004. On the other hand, in an endeavour to offset the demand raised in the show-cause notice, they reversed proportionate CENVAT credit on input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of the said commodities and also paid interest thereon. They did so to claim the benefit of the decision in Chandrapur Magnetic Wires (1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). This action of the assessee tacitly amounted to acknowledgement of the fact that the said commodities were exempted final products - However, the above conduct of the assessee (reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit) is certainly inconsistent with their present stand before us as regards the status of the three commodities - Conditional stay granted. Issues:1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay over Rs. 3 crores demanded under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for not maintaining separate accounts for dutiable and exempted products.2. Whether the by-products generated by the appellant should be considered as exempted final products for the purpose of Rule 6.3. Whether the reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit by the appellant on input services acknowledges the by-products as exempted final products.4. Whether the subsequent conduct of the appellant, including the reversal of CENVAT credit, affects the determination of the status of the by-products.5. Whether the appellant's plea of limitation and financial hardships are valid considerations in this case.Analysis:1. The appellant sought waiver and stay of the demanded amount of over Rs. 3 crores under Rule 6 (3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The dispute arose from the appellant manufacturing both dutiable and exempted products without maintaining separate accounts. The department claimed that certain by-products were exempted final products, leading to the demand. The appellant argued that the by-products were not final products to attract Rule 6 (3) provisions.2. The appellant contended that the chilly seeds, seed oil, and spent chilly were by-products and not final products subject to Rule 6. They reversed proportionate CENVAT credit and paid interest, citing a Supreme Court judgment to support their position. The appellant also raised the issue of limitation against the demand.3. The appellant relied on previous judgments to argue that by-products should not fall under Rule 6. In contrast, the Additional Commissioner argued that the by-products should be considered excisable products, citing relevant case laws and the appellant's reversal of CENVAT credit as acknowledgment of the by-products as exempted final products.4. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the appellant's stance, noting that their reversal of CENVAT credit implied acknowledgment of the by-products as exempted final products. The subsequent conduct of the appellant was questioned for its impact on the case. The Tribunal did not delve into the effect of the appellant's conduct in August 2011 at that stage.5. The appellant's plea of limitation and financial hardships was considered. The appellant did not claim financial hardships, and their offer to pre-deposit 10% of the demanded amount was accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the appellant to comply with the pre-deposit and granted waiver and stay of recovery subject to compliance.This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, focusing on the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on the facts and legal precedents cited.