2018 (5) TMI 1111 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeal, exempts waste from Rule 6(3)(b)

M/s Delta Foods (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad (Vice-versa)

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules should not apply to waste generated during the ... CENVAT credit - demand of reversal on the ground that some of the inputs are contained in wastes/floor sweeping so cleared by the appellants - Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR - Held that: - Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rule is applicable only when duty exempted final product is manufactured and that floors sweepings, defective cakes/contaminated flour are not exempted final products, the demand of an amount under Rule 6(3)(b) by the department is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Reversal of Cenvat credit for waste generated during the manufacturing process.2. Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal for subsequent period.Analysis:Issue 1: Reversal of Cenvat credit for waste generated during the manufacturing processThe appellant, engaged in the manufacture of biscuits and cakes, faced Show Cause Notices demanding reversal of credit for the period under consideration due to waste generated during the manufacturing process. The contention was that some inputs were contained in the waste cleared by the appellants. The appellant argued that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules should not apply as it pertains to cases where final products are cleared, not waste or by-products generated during the manufacturing process. The appellant relied on various rulings to support their stance.Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit RulesThe Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that Rule 6(3)(b) should only be invoked when duty-exempted final products are manufactured, not in cases where waste or by-products are cleared. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for an amount under Rule 6(3)(b) by the department was not legally sustainable. Relying on settled law from previous cases cited by the appellant, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.Issue 3: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal for subsequent periodThe department appealed against the Order-in-Appeal for the subsequent period, covering January 2011 to December 2012, on identical terms as the earlier period. Both appeals were consolidated for disposal as the issue was identical in both cases. The Tribunal, based on the settled law from previous cases, allowed the appeal filed by the appellant and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, providing consequential relief in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules should not apply to waste generated during the manufacturing process. The decision was based on established legal principles from previous cases, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.