2016 (4) TMI 327 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Allowed: Cenvat Credit for Coal Loss in Manufacturing Process Upheld

M/s Real Ispat And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Raipur

M/s Real Ispat And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Raipur - 2016 (335) E.L.T. 325 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Disallowance of Cenvat credit for short receipted quantity of coal.2. Justification for sending coal to washery and loss in weight during washing process.3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Cenvat credit for short receipted quantity of coalThe case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of Cenvat credit by the Revenue due to the short receipted quantity of coal in the factory of the Appellant. The Central Excise Audit wing detected that in 9 consignments, lesser quantity of coal was received compared to the invoiced quantity. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for disallowance of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.Issue 2: Justification for sending coal to washery and loss in weight during washing processThe Appellant argued that the coal procured from mines contained foreign materials like mud, dust, and ash, making it unsuitable for direct use in manufacturing Sponge Iron. They sent such coal to the washery for washing, resulting in a loss in weight during the process. The Appellant contended that the loss should be considered as a manufacturing loss, and the duty paid on the purchased quantity of coal should be eligible for Cenvat credit. They supported their argument with references to previous Tribunal decisions and documents from the coal supplier and washery.The Tribunal examined the facts and found that the coal was indeed sent for washing to make it usable in the manufacturing process. The loss in weight due to the removal of impurities during washing was considered as part of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's argument that the credit should be disallowed because other consignments were not sent for washing. It was established that the loss occurred during the washing process, and the Appellant's reasoning was deemed valid. The Tribunal also referred to certificates and research findings supporting the correlation between ash reduction and loss of coal volume during washing, further strengthening the Appellant's case.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The Revenue sought to impose a penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, alleging malafide intention or suppression on the part of the Appellant. However, the Tribunal found no grounds for sustaining the penalty as the demand itself was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal highlighted that no facts were presented in the Show Cause Notice to demonstrate malafide intention or suppression by the Appellant. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Appellant was also deemed unsustainable.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per the law. The judgment was pronounced on 22.1.2016 by S. K. Mohanty, Member (J) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.