2018 (4) TMI 755 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on tax liability and credit availment in excise cases

M/s Topworth Steels Pvt. Limited Versus C.C.E. And ST, Raipur

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. Fly ash generated during the manufacturing of sponge iron was deemed not subject to tax ... Tax liability - fly ash generated by the appellant during the manufacture of sponge iron - Held that: - the Tribunal in the case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Raipur [2017 (6) TMI 898 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that the fly ash produced during combustion of coal in the manufacture of electricity is a waste by-product. The same is not emerging out of any manufacturing process - tax liability do not arise. CENVAT credit - rejected finished goods when the same were returned by the suppliers - Held that: - Admittedly, the finished goods cleared were on payment of duty. When they were returned back to the manufacturer they are entitled to take credit of such duty as if it is input credit in terms of Rule 16(i) of the CER 2002 - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Tax liability of fly ash generated during the manufacture of sponge iron.2. Credit availed on rejected finished goods returned by suppliers.Analysis:Issue 1: Tax liability of fly ash generated during the manufacture of sponge ironThe first issue in the appeal pertained to the tax liability of fly ash generated during the manufacturing process. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Mettur Thermal Power Station. The Tribunal highlighted that fly ash is considered process waste and not liable for duty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the twin tests of manufacture and marketability to determine excise duty liability. The Tribunal concluded that fly ash, being a by-product during the production of electricity and not a marketable commodity, does not satisfy the criteria for excise duty. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the demand on fly ash based on the legal precedents and findings.Issue 2: Credit availed on rejected finished goodsThe second issue revolved around the credit availed by the appellant on rejected finished goods returned by buyers. The appellant had cleared these goods on payment of duty, and upon their return, availed credit of the duty paid under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Revenue contended that rejected goods cannot be considered as inputs for availing credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this view, stating that the appellant was entitled to take credit of the duty paid on the returned goods as input credit under Rule 16(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal found no ambiguity in applying this provision and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues, holding that fly ash generated during the manufacturing process of sponge iron is not subject to tax liability and that credit can be availed on rejected finished goods returned by suppliers. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and the correct application of relevant rules and regulations in determining tax liabilities and credit availment in excise matters.