TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on LSHS used as fuel for generating steam and electricity that was used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods under Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. (ii) Whether, in the connected matter involving electricity wheeled out to the Grid and the Township, reversal of proportionate credit was required and whether penalty was leviable.
Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on LSHS used as fuel for generating steam and electricity that was used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods under Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Analysis: Rule 6(1) was treated as the general and controlling provision embodying the principle that credit is not allowable on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Rule 6(2) was held to deal with non-fuel inputs and the maintenance of separate accounts where common inputs are used for dutiable and exempted goods. The exclusion of inputs intended to be used as fuel from Rule 6(2) did not nullify the operation of Rule 6(1). The Court held that fuel inputs still fell within the plenary prohibition in Rule 6(1), and credit could not be taken merely because the fuel was used for steam or electricity ultimately connected with exempted goods.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit on LSHS used as fuel for manufacture of exempted goods was not admissible, and the contention of the assessee was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether, in the connected matter involving electricity wheeled out to the Grid and the Township, reversal of proportionate credit was required and whether penalty was leviable.
Analysis: The Court stated that the same reasoning governed the interpretation issue in the connected appeal, while the question of credit attributable to electricity wheeled out to the Grid and Township was to be governed by the contemporaneous decision in the Maruti Suzuki matter. It further held that, because of conflicting decisions and drafting difficulties in the rules, penalty was not leviable. The matters were remitted to the adjudicating authority for determination of the duty payable without penalty.
Conclusion: Proportionate reversal was required to the extent indicated, but no penalty was leviable, and the matter was remitted for quantification of duty.
Final Conclusion: The Department succeeded on the core interpretation of Rule 6, but the assessee obtained relief from penalty and the proceedings were sent back for fresh determination of the duty payable in accordance with the Court's directions.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 6(1) is the operative and plenary prohibition against CENVAT credit on inputs used in exempted goods, and the fuel-input exception in Rule 6(2) does not displace that prohibition.
TaxTMI 
