TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants relief to noodle manufacturer in input credit dispute</h1> <h3>M/s Nestle India Ltd, M/s Paam Eatables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida</h3> M/s Nestle India Ltd, M/s Paam Eatables Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - 2017 (349) E.L.T. 171 (Tri. - All.) Issues:1. Liability to reverse input credit under Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with rule 6 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for removal of broken noodles exempt under Notification No. 3/2005-CE.Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute regarding whether the appellant, a manufacturer of noodles on a job work basis, was liable to reverse input credit for the removal of broken noodles exempt under a specific notification. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing noodles. The issue arose when broken noodles, considered waste product, were found exempt from excise duty. The revenue contended that the appellant should pay a specified percentage of the price of exempted goods under relevant rules. The Commissioner upheld the demand, imposing penalties, which led to the appeal before the Tribunal.The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the broken noodles were waste products exempt from duty, thus not requiring a reversal of credit. They cited relevant case law and interpretations to support their position. The Tribunal considered the legislative intent behind the rules and the distinction between exempt final products and by-products. The Tribunal emphasized the literal interpretation of the rules and concluded that as long as common inputs were used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products, the provisions of Rule 57CC would apply.The Tribunal referred to a previous ruling by a Larger Bench, which clarified the treatment of waste, scrap, and by-products not excisable at all. It highlighted the importance of maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in manufacturing exempted final products. The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not required to reverse CENVAT credit on the clearance of waste products. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, the Tribunal held that the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, were not applicable in cases of waste and by-products arising from the manufacture of taxable final products. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting consequential benefits to the appellants.
TaxTMI 