2021 (12) TMI 903 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of respondent on LPG exemption refund eligibility

C.C.E. & S.T. -Rajkot Versus Reliance Industries Ltd

The Tribunal held that the respondent is not required to pay/reverse the amount under Rule 6(3) for LPG cleared under PDS exemption. The amount ... Reversal of CENVAT Credit - exempt services or not - input services attributed to LPG manufactured and cleared under PDS under exemption and amount which was paid /reversed is eligible for refund to the respondent - HELD THAT:- The identical issue only for the different period i.e. April 2015- March 2016 came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal in C.C.E. & S.T. -RAJKOT VERSUS RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2021 (10) TMI 529 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue holding that respondents is not required to pay any amount under Rule 6(3) in respect of LPG cleared under exemption under PDS. Therefore, the amount paid by the respondent was liable to be refunded to them. The issue in the above case and the case in hand is absolutely identical and the only difference is of period. Therefore, following the above order, the appeals filed by the revenue are not sustainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent is required to pay/reverse the amount in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for input services attributed to LPG manufactured and cleared under PDS exemption.2. Eligibility of the amount paid/reversed for refund to the respondent.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Requirement to Pay/Reverse Amount under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004:The Tribunal examined whether the respondent must maintain separate accounts for input services used in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, specifically LPG cleared under PDS exemption. Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, disallows credit on inputs/services used in manufacturing exempted goods, except under circumstances mentioned in Rule 6(2). The Tribunal found that the respondent used inputs and services primarily for manufacturing dutiable goods like Motor Spirit (MS), High Speed Diesel Oil, Aviation Turbine Fuel (ATF), Naphtha, and Fuel Oil. LPG emerged as an intermediate product during the refining process, which was dutiable until cleared under PDS exemption. The Tribunal concluded that Rule 6(1) and consequently Rule 6(2) were not applicable since the inputs/services were used for manufacturing dutiable products, and the emergence of LPG was incidental.The Tribunal referenced the Gujarat High Court decision in Sterling Gelatin, which held that Rule 6(1) does not apply when the entire quantity of inputs is used for manufacturing dutiable goods, even if a by-product emerges. Similarly, the Supreme Court in National Organic Chemical Industries Limited ruled that inevitable by-products do not warrant denying Cenvat credit. The Tribunal also noted that maintaining separate accounts under Rule 6(2) was impossible given the manufacturing process, where inputs/services were used for dutiable goods, and LPG emerged unavoidably.2. Eligibility for Refund of Amount Paid/Reversed:The Tribunal held that the eligibility for Cenvat credit should be determined at the time of receipt of inputs/services. At the time of availing credit, LPG was dutiable, and it only became exempted upon clearance under PDS. This view was supported by the Rajasthan High Court in Hindustan Zinc Ltd, affirmed by the Supreme Court, which stated that credit eligibility is determined when inputs are received, not upon clearance of finished products.The Tribunal also considered the respondent's argument that LPG is a by-product. It referenced multiple judgments, including Alkali Manufacture Association of India, which established that by-products do not require separate accounting under Rule 6. The Tribunal concluded that LPG, emerging unavoidably during the refining process, is a by-product, and Rule 6 does not apply to by-products.The Tribunal upheld the respondent's eligibility for the refund of the amount paid/reversed, stating that the entire quantity of inputs/services was used for manufacturing dutiable goods, and the emergence of LPG did not affect the credit eligibility.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the respondent is not required to pay/reverse the amount under Rule 6(3) for LPG cleared under PDS exemption. The amount paid/reversed is eligible for a refund. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming the respondent's position based on the established legal principles and precedents.