Rule 6(3) Cenvat credit liability cannot be reimposed where an identical issue was already finally decided for the assessee.

Common inputs and input services used for manufacture of excisable goods and generation of electricity did not justify a 6% payment under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 where the identical issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee and that decision had attained finality. The earlier ruling that electricity generated from bagasse and sold outside the factory could not be subjected to the 6% levy was treated as governing the same statutory regime and period. On that basis, the demand under Rule 6(3) was unsustainable and the impugned order was set aside, with the appeals allowed in favour of the assessees.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessees were liable to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of electricity generated and sold to the electricity distribution company under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 when common inputs and input services were used for manufacture of excisable goods and generation of electricity.

Analysis: The controversy was treated as covered by an earlier adjudication on an identical issue, which had held that electricity generated from bagasse and sold outside could not be subjected to the 6% payment under Rule 6(3). The same statutory framework applied to the present period, and the earlier decision had attained finality. In those circumstances, a different view could not be adopted for the same issue.

Conclusion: The assessees were not liable to pay 6% of the value of the electricity sold, and the demand under Rule 6(3) could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an identical issue under the same statutory regime has already been conclusively decided in favour of the assessee and has attained finality, the liability under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be reimposed on the same footing.

---