Proportionate CENVAT credit reversal satisfies Rule 6 obligations and precludes alternate percentage recovery; time bar defeats related demands.

Electricity wheeled out from a co-generation plant qualifies as exempted goods for the purposes of Rule 6, but Rule 6 liability attaches only where common inputs or input services are used for both dutiable goods and that exempted electricity. Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit under the statutory formula in Rule 6(3A) fulfils the Rule 6 obligation and precludes alternate percentage payment under Rule 6(3)(i). Failure to timely intimate exercise of the option under Rule 6(3A) is a procedural lapse that does not defeat substantive reversal where reversal has been made. Demands issued beyond the statutory limitation period are time-barred and related penalties are unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether electricity generated in a co-generation plant and wheeled out to the grid constitutes exempted goods attracting Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) Whether reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A) precludes demand for payment of 6% under Rule 6(3)(i); (iii) Whether failure to intimate exercise of option under Rule 6(3A) disentitles the assessee from proportionate reversal; (iv) Whether the demands in the show cause notices dated 27.04.2017 for March 2015 to March 2016 are barred by limitation and whether penalties are sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether electricity cleared outside the factory constitutes exempted goods attracting the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Electricity is classifiable under Chapter 27 and is exempt from duty and thus falls within the expression "exempted goods" under Rule 2(d). Liability under Rule 6, however, arises only where common inputs or input services have been used in the manufacture of both dutiable goods and such exempted electricity. Precedents addressing byproducts and incidental outputs inform this analysis.

Conclusion: Electricity cleared outside the factory is "exempted goods" but Rule 6 liability arises only to the extent common inputs or input services were used for both dutiable goods and the exempted electricity.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant, having reversed proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A), can still be required to pay 6% of the value of electricity cleared outside the factory under Rule 6(3)(i).

Analysis: Judicial precedents establish that reversal of proportionate credit under the statutory formula satisfies the requirements of Rule 6 and that the department cannot insist on the alternate percentage payment where proportionate reversal has been effected. Applying those principles, reversal of credit attributable to common input services achieves the object of Rule 6 and prevents double recovery.

Conclusion: Once proportionate credit has been reversed under Rule 6(3A), the assessee cannot be compelled to pay 6% under Rule 6(3)(i); the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) is not sustainable on merits.

Issue (iii): Whether non-intimation of exercise of option under Rule 6(3A) would disentitle the appellant from availing proportionate reversal.

Analysis: The intimation requirement under Rule 6(3A) is procedural, intended to facilitate departmental verification. Where proportionate reversal has in fact been made and intimated (even if there was some procedural lapse in timing), the substantive condition of the rule is satisfied and procedural lapses cannot be employed to deny substantive benefit in the absence of any dispute on correctness of reversal.

Conclusion: Failure to strictly comply with the timing of the intimation is a procedural lapse and does not disentitle the appellant from the benefit of proportionate reversal where reversal has been made and accepted on record.

Issue (iv): Whether the demands raised in the show cause notices dated 27.04.2017 are barred by limitation and whether penalties are sustainable.

Analysis: For the disputed period March 2015 to March 2016 the normal limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was one year. The show cause notices dated 27.04.2017 were issued beyond that period and the extended period was not invoked nor were there allegations of fraud, suppression, or willful misstatement. Amendments extending limitation from one to two years effected from 14.05.2016 cannot be applied retrospectively to revive barred demands. Penalties dependent on unsustainable demands are therefore also unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demands in the show cause notices are time-barred and unsustainable; consequentially, the penalties imposed are also unsustainable and are set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellant has complied with Rule 6 by reversing proportionate CENVAT credit under Rule 6(3A); the demand under Rule 6(3)(i) is unsustainable on merits, the show cause notices are barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the penalties are set aside. The impugned Orders-in-Original Nos. 31/2017 and 32/2017 dated 30.11.2017 are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit in accordance with Rule 6(3A) satisfies the obligation under Rule 6 and precludes alternate recovery under Rule 6(3)(i); failure to strictly time intimation under Rule 6(3A) is a procedural lapse that cannot defeat substantive reversal where reversal is made; demands raised beyond the statutory limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without invocation of extended limitation or allegation of fraud are barred.

---