Manufacturer not required to reverse CENVAT credit on clearance of non-manufactured scrap under Rule 6(3)

CESTAT Mumbai held that Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not apply to clearance of non-manufactured scrap/assets. The appellant, a manufacturer of sponge iron and liquid carbon dioxide, cleared scrap/assets that were neither main products nor by-products. The tribunal ruled that Rule 6 requires manufacture of exempted goods as a sine qua non for its applicability. Since the cleared assets were not manufactured by the appellant, the rule was inapplicable. The demand for CENVAT credit reversal was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this matter are:

1. Whether the appellant was liable to reverse cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004) on the clearance of non-dutiable scrap/assets such as office equipment, vehicles, furniture & fixtures, computers, scrapped batteries, scrap structure steel, and other used materials.

2. Whether the assets cleared by the appellant fall within the definition of 'exempted goods' under Rule 2(d) read with Explanation 1 to Rule 6(1) of CCR, 2004, especially in light of the Explanation inserted by Notification No. 6/2015-CE (N.T.) dated 1.3.2015.

3. Whether the extended period of limitation for recovery proceedings was properly invoked by the Revenue for demands pertaining to the period prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notices in November 2019.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Applicability of Rule 6(3) CCR, 2004 on clearance of non-dutiable scrap/assets

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 mandates reversal of cenvat credit on clearance of exempted goods. Rule 6(3) specifically requires reversal of credit at the prescribed rate when such goods are cleared. The Explanation 1 inserted by Notification dated 1.3.2015 expanded the definition of exempted goods to include 'non-excisable goods' cleared from the factory for consideration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 6 applies exclusively to the manufacture and clearance of exempted goods. The term 'manufacture' is a sine qua non for the applicability of Rule 6. The appellant's scrap/assets were not manufactured by them; they are engaged in manufacturing 'Sponge Iron' and 'Liquid Carbon Dioxide'. The scrap/assets in question were neither main products nor by-products of the manufacturing process.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant produced documentary evidence (invoices) showing the nature and dates of clearance of scrap/assets. The Tribunal noted that these were non-dutiable assets cleared by the appellant and not manufactured goods.

Application of law to facts: Since the assets cleared were not manufactured goods, Rule 6 and its provisions regarding reversal of cenvat credit do not apply. The Explanation 1 to Rule 6(1) which includes 'non-excisable goods' only applies when such goods are manufactured and cleared for consideration. The appellant's case falls outside this scope.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue relied on the expanded definition of exempted goods to argue that the appellant should have reversed credit. However, the Tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on a precedent involving trading activity, which is not analogous since the appellant was a manufacturer and the scrap/assets were not manufactured goods. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention, holding that Rule 6 cannot be invoked for clearance of non-manufactured goods.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to reverse cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) on the clearance of non-dutiable scrap/assets.

Issue 2: Whether the assets cleared are 'exempted goods' under Rule 2(d) r/w Explanation 1 to Rule 6(1) CCR, 2004

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 2(d) defines exempted goods, and Explanation 1 to Rule 6(1) (effective from 1.3.2015) includes non-excisable goods cleared from the factory for consideration within this definition. The key condition is that the goods must be manufactured by the assessee.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the Explanation 1's inclusion of non-excisable goods is conditional upon the manufacture of such goods. The appellant's cleared scrap/assets were not manufactured by them, and thus do not qualify as exempted goods under Rule 2(d) or Explanation 1.

Key evidence and findings: The appellant's admitted manufacturing activities and the nature of the cleared goods (scrap/assets) were examined. The Tribunal found no evidence to show that the scrap/assets were manufactured goods.

Application of law to facts: Since the goods cleared were not manufactured, they cannot be classified as exempted goods under the relevant provisions, and therefore the reversal provisions under Rule 6 do not apply.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue's argument that the goods fall within the expanded definition of exempted goods was rejected due to the absence of manufacture. The Tribunal also distinguished the cited precedent involving trading activities, which is not applicable here.

Conclusion: The assets cleared by the appellant are not 'exempted goods' under Rule 2(d) r/w Explanation 1 to Rule 6(1) CCR, 2004.

Issue 3: Validity of invoking extended period of limitation for recovery of demands relating to invoices dated prior to November 2017

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The limitation period for initiating recovery proceedings under service tax law is generally three years from the relevant date. The Show Cause Notices were issued on 19.11.2019, so demands relating to periods prior to November 2016 are barred by limitation unless extended period is validly invoked.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the demand for the period 2014-15, particularly for invoices dated from 31.5.2014 to 31.10.2014, was clearly beyond the extended period of limitation. The adjudicating authority noted the appellant's submissions on limitation but failed to give any finding. The first appellate authority also did not address this issue.

Key evidence and findings: Documentary evidence in the form of invoices substantiating the dates and amounts was produced by the appellant. The Tribunal found that the demand for Rs.3,51,039/- relating to the 2014-15 period was time-barred.

Application of law to facts: Since the Show Cause Notices were issued in November 2019, demands pertaining to periods earlier than November 2016 are barred by limitation and liable to be set aside.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue did not produce any valid justification for invoking the extended period of limitation for the earlier period. The Tribunal found the Revenue's failure to address the limitation issue significant.

Conclusion: The demands relating to the period prior to November 2016, particularly for the 2014-15 invoices, are barred by limitation and not sustainable.

Significant Holdings

"The essential requirement for invoking Rule 6 ibid is the manufacture of exempted goods. The explanation inserted therein w.e.f. 1.3.2015 includes 'non-excisable goods' only when they are being manufactured there and cleared for consideration."

"Once if Rule 6 ibid is held to be applicable in a given situation, then only the applicability of Rule 2(d) can be looked into but that is not the case here."

"The scrap/assets cleared by the appellant were not manufactured by the appellant as they are into the manufacturing of 'Sponge Iron' and 'Liquid Carbon Dioxide'. These scrap/assets in question were neither the main products nor bye products."

"From the perusal of the above table it is clear that demand pertaining to invoices from dated 31.5.2014 till 31.10.2014 is clearly hit by limitation as the show cause notice itself was issued in November, 2019, hence liable to be set aside on this ground alone."

"In the light of the foregoing discussions, the demands in question are not sustainable. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law."

---