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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies where a dutiable final product is manufactured and a by-product emerges only as a technological necessity during the manufacturing process.
Analysis: The relevant scheme distinguishes between exempted final products cleared with common inputs and a by-product or waste that emerges incidentally in the course of manufacture. A combined reading of the credit rules shows that Rule 6 is attracted when common inputs are used to produce two final products, one dutiable and the other exempt. Where the exempt clearances are of a by-product arising as a technological necessity, they do not stand on the same footing as a final product for the purpose of reversing credit. The earlier interpretation under the erstwhile modvat regime remained applicable to that limited class of cases, and the binding declaration of law by the Supreme Court governed the issue.
Conclusion: Rule 6 was held not applicable to the by-product generated as a technological necessity, and the demand could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Credit-reversal provisions apply only where common inputs yield dutiable and exempt final products; they do not extend to a by-product or waste arising incidentally as a technological necessity in manufacture.