Issues: (i) Whether Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) generated and stored by the appellant for further use during the course of manufacture of beer is liable to central excise duty; (ii) Whether the impugned order upholding confirmation of adjudged demands is sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether Carbon Di Oxide (CO2) generated and stored by the appellant for further use during the course of manufacture of beer is liable to central excise duty.

Analysis: Sections 2(d), 2(f) and 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 require excisable goods to result from manufacture or production attracting the central excise levy. CO2 emerged as an unavoidable by-product during fermentation in the manufacture of beer, an alcoholic liquor for human consumption and a non-excisable final product. Its subsequent capture and use in brewing represented efficient utilisation of the by-product and did not establish that it was manufactured for captive consumption or sale. The applicable precedents establish that a by-product arising from manufacture of a non-excisable final product does not attract central excise duty merely because it is independently tariff-listed or captively used; marketability must also be established by the Revenue.

Conclusion: CO2 generated as a by-product in the manufacture of beer is not liable to central excise duty. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order upholding confirmation of adjudged demands is sustainable.

Analysis: Since the CO2 in question was not dutiable, the duty demand could not be sustained. The invocation of the extended period of limitation and the consequential penalty also failed, particularly where the settled position supported the assessee's bona fide belief regarding non-dutiability.

Conclusion: The confirmation of the excise-duty demand, extended-period invocation and penalty is unsustainable. The finding is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No central excise liability arises on CO2 incidentally generated and captively utilised in the brewing of non-excisable beer, and the related demand and penal consequences cannot survive.

Ratio Decidendi: A by-product arising incidentally in the manufacture of a non-excisable final product is not liable to central excise duty merely on account of its captive utilisation, absent manufacture of excisable goods within the statutory levy.

Issues: Whether the Settlement Commission's rejection of adjustment for reversed CENVAT credit warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Judicial review of an order passed by the Settlement Commission in its discretionary jurisdiction is confined to recognised grounds, including contravention of the governing statute, prejudice to the opposite party, fraud, bias or mala fides. The sufficiency, adequacy and evidentiary value of documents supporting reversal of credit fall within the Settlement Commission's domain and cannot be reassessed in writ jurisdiction as in an appeal. The earlier remand permitted the Settlement Commission to seek further information for verification; its request for statutory records and invoices was therefore within that remit. No statutory contravention, fraud, bias, mala fides or other jurisdictional infirmity was established.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claimed CENVAT-credit adjustment disclosed no ground for judicial interference and stands undisturbed.

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed upon suppliers that cleared their goods on payment of excise duty, merely because invoices did not correctly identify the buyer.

Analysis: Rule 25 is expressly subject to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Its invocation therefore requires the conditions under Section 11AC, including non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, short-payment or erroneous refund of duty, to be satisfied. The goods supplied by the respondents were admittedly cleared on payment of the applicable excise duty. Incorrect or omitted buyer particulars in invoices, even if constituting a procedural lapse under Rule 11(2), did not establish any duty evasion by those suppliers or fulfil the statutory preconditions for penalty and confiscation under Rule 25.

Conclusion: Penalty under Rule 25 was not imposable on suppliers whose goods were cleared on payment of duty; the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether reversal of Cenvat credit was payable on clearance of used refractory bricks as waste and scrap under Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 3(5A) applies where capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap, while Rule 3(5) concerns goods removed as such. The refractory bricks were inputs used in manufacture and, after use, had become waste; they could not be characterised as capital goods or as goods removed as such. The settled treatment of waste arising from used refractory materials also did not support duty liability where such waste was not specified or classifiable in the tariff.

Conclusion: Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable; no reversal of Cenvat credit, duty demand, interest, or penalty was sustainable against the assessee.

Issues: Whether refund of excess excise duty paid owing to inclusion of pre-declared cash and turnover discounts in the transaction value could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The discount schemes were disclosed to dealers before clearance, although their precise quantum was determinable only after completion of the relevant discount period. Cum-duty credit notes were issued to the dealers to pass on the agreed discounts. The Tribunal's earlier decision in respect of the same assessee had recognized entitlement to provisional assessment under Rule 7 and, consequently, to refund of excess duty attributable to such pre-known discounts. The Chartered Accountant's and dealers' certificates established that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the dealers or buyers and was borne by the assessee.

Conclusion: The refund claims are not barred by unjust enrichment, and the assessee is entitled to refund of the claimed excess excise duty.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on inputs procured before the amendment to Rule 12 from units availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 01/2010-C.E. was admissible.

Analysis: The CENVAT Credit Rules were required to be read harmoniously. Credit is available where duty has been suffered on inputs, the inputs are used in manufacture of final products, and they are received under prescribed invoices or documents. As these conditions were undisputed and the pre-amendment Rules contained no express prohibition against such credit, a subsequent express provision could not be read as restricting credit only from its effective date.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit on the disputed inputs was admissible even before the amendment to Rule 12; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal may refuse to admit an assessee's appeal solely because the amount involved is below two lakh rupees, without giving reasons on the merits.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 35B(1) confers discretion on the Appellate Tribunal to refuse admission of specified appeals involving fine or penalty not exceeding two lakh rupees. That discretion does not dispense with the Tribunal's obligation, as a statutory quasi-judicial forum, to provide reasons. Reasons are integral to a valid adjudicatory decision. The Tribunal must consider the appeal and, if it finds on merits that admission is unwarranted, record reasons for refusing admission.

Conclusion: The Tribunal could not dismiss the appeals merely on the monetary limit without a reasoned consideration; the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit availed on inputs covered by the supplier's invoices could be denied for alleged non-receipt of goods, and whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The appellant produced valid input invoices, stock records, vendor ledger accounts, bank statements and freight-payment details showing receipt, accounting and payment for the inputs. The Revenue relied solely on material purportedly recovered from the supplier, without corroborative evidence in the appellant's proceedings; moreover, the supplier was not made a co-noticee. The transactions had also been recorded in RG 23A Part I and reflected through ER-1 returns. These disclosures negated suppression and did not support invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: Denial of CENVAT credit was unsustainable on merits and barred by limitation; the demand relating to such credit was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit on services used for setting up a manufacturing plant remains admissible after omission of the expression "setting up" from the definition of input service with effect from 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 contains a principal definition covering services used directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture, besides inclusive and exclusion clauses. Setting up a factory has a direct nexus with manufacture because manufacture cannot commence without the facility. Deletion of "setting up" from the inclusive clause does not restrict services that independently fall within the principal clause. Credit is unavailable only where the particular service is covered by an exclusion clause. The record required service-wise verification of whether the disputed services were used for excluded construction, civil structure, foundation, or support-structure activities.

Conclusion: Services used for setting up a factory are eligible input services under the principal clause of Rule 2(l) after 01.04.2011, unless the particular service falls within an applicable exclusion clause.

Outcome: The writ appeal was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory appellate remedy against the order in original.

Issues: Whether, after the commencement of the GST regime, tobacco and tobacco products remained subject to central excise duty and NCCD; whether the saving of the Central Excise Act, 1944 through Section 174 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was unconstitutional; and whether Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 stood impliedly repealed.

Analysis: The legal challenges were already governed by earlier writ and appellate decisions that had attained finality. The additional grounds did not warrant reopening those settled questions; grounds not covered by the earlier decisions could be pursued before the statutory appellate authority against the order in original.

Conclusion: The requested declarations concerning excise duty, the saving clause, and implied repeal were not granted; unrelated grounds against the order in original remained available for consideration in the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit is admissible on erection, commissioning and installation services used for setting up a new cement plant after 01.04.2011.

Analysis: Services used for setting up the new plant had a direct nexus with the manufacture of finished goods. Although the expression relating to setting up of a factory was omitted from the inclusive portion of the definition after 01.04.2011, the services remained covered by the main clause of Rule 2(l), as they were used directly or indirectly in relation to manufacture and were not specifically excluded.

Conclusion: CENVAT credit is admissible on the services used for setting up the new plant.

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed upon the appellant under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged abetment of wrongful availment of CENVAT credit by the purchaser.

Analysis: Rule 26(2) applies where a person issues an excise-duty invoice without delivery of goods, abets issuance of such invoice, or abets preparation of a document on the basis of which ineligible benefit is likely to be or has been taken. The record did not establish that the appellant had issued or abetted issuance of any excise invoice or other document enabling the purchaser to avail ineligible credit. Mere receipt of goods from a broker could not establish abetment of the purchaser's alleged wrongful credit availment.

Conclusion: The penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether writing off outstanding dues payable to suppliers, without writing off the corresponding inputs, requires reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the disputed CENVAT credit.

Issue (i): Whether writing off outstanding dues payable to suppliers, without writing off the corresponding inputs, requires reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 3(5B) requires payment equivalent to credit only where credit-availing inputs or unused capital goods are written off, fully or partly, or provision for such write-off is made. Its proviso confirms that the rule concerns goods treated as unusable and subsequently used. The record showed only a write-off of vendor liabilities, while the Chartered Accountant's certificate confirmed that the goods were not written off from the accounts. Revenue produced no evidence from stock records establishing that the inputs were written off or were not used in manufacture. A commercial reduction or extinguishment of an amount payable to suppliers does not, by itself, establish that the duty-paid inputs were not used.

Conclusion: Reversal of CENVAT credit was not required merely because outstanding vendor dues were written off. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for recovery of the disputed CENVAT credit.

Analysis: The write-off entries were recorded in the books of account, and the audit had knowledge of the relevant write-offs through the spot memo issued in March 2015. The issue turned on the interpretation of Rule 3(5B), for which the assessee's view had support in the cited legal principles. These circumstances did not establish suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.

Conclusion: The extended period was not invocable, and the demand pertaining to that period could not be sustained. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: A write-off of supplier liabilities, unaccompanied by proof that the credit-availing inputs themselves were written off, does not trigger the statutory credit-reversal obligation; recovery based on such entries also cannot be sustained through the extended limitation period without suppression.

Ratio Decidendi: Rule 3(5B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applies to a write-off of credit-availing inputs or unused capital goods, not merely to a write-off of amounts payable to suppliers, and Revenue must establish the requisite facts before demanding reversal of credit.

Issues: Whether a non-manufacturer contractor that collected from its customer an amount representing excise duty in excess of the duty actually paid on excisable goods was liable to deposit the excess amount with the Central Government.

Analysis: Section 11D(1A) applies to every person collecting an amount as representing duty of excise on excisable goods in excess of the duty assessed, determined and paid; its application is not confined to manufacturers. The accepted bid prices separately identified excise duty, and the invoices either separately reflected such duty or incorporated it in the accepted prices. The running bills also declared that statutory taxes and duties had been deposited. The amounts collected as excise duty exceeded the duty paid by the manufacturers. The cited decisions concerned materially different circumstances, including cum-duty pricing without collection of duty as such, blank duty columns, or absence of any excess duty collection.

Conclusion: The excess amount collected as representing excise duty was required to be credited to the Central Government under Section 11D(1A), with applicable interest; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an amount deposited during investigation and remaining unspent in the personal ledger account, before determination of duty liability, attracts interest from the date of deposit at 12% per annum rather than interest only under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amount was deposited before any determination or appropriation of duty liability and was refundable as a revenue deposit/unspent advance deposit. Such amount did not acquire the character of duty merely because it was credited in the personal ledger account. The statutory scheme under Sections 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 governing refund of duty and delayed statutory refunds was therefore inapplicable. The jurisdictional High Court decision on materially identical facts was treated as binding and as affirming interest from the date of deposit, including interest at 12% per annum where the Revenue had retained the amount for a prolonged period.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the refundable revenue deposit from the respective dates of deposit until refund.

Issues: Whether fertilizer subsidy received directly from the Government of India under the Nutrient Based Subsidy Policy is includable in the assessable value as additional consideration for levy of central excise duty.

Analysis: Section 4 bases valuation on transaction value where price is the sole consideration. Rule 6 permits addition only where additional consideration flows directly or indirectly from the buyer to the manufacturer. Subsidy paid independently by the Government under a policy scheme to make fertilizers affordable does not emanate from purchasers merely because its amount is linked to the quantity or category of fertilizers sold. The applicable Board clarification, binding on departmental authorities, also treats such fertilizer subsidy as not linked to the buyer.

Conclusion: The Government subsidy is not additional consideration flowing from the buyer and is not includable in the assessable value; the consequential duty, interest and penalty demands cannot survive.

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on input services could be denied because the service-provider invoices were issued in the name of the head office, which was not registered as an Input Service Distributor.

Analysis: Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits verification of receipt and accounting of input services notwithstanding defects in invoice particulars. During the relevant period, there was no requirement that credit relating to head-office invoices be distributed proportionately through an Input Service Distributor. The absence of Input Service Distributor registration was a procedural irregularity where no unintended credit benefit or revenue loss resulted.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was admissible to the assessee; denial solely for want of Input Service Distributor registration of the head office was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether CENVAT credit reversed under protest pursuant to a show-cause notice is refundable where the demand is set aside as barred by limitation.

Analysis: The demand had been annulled on the ground that the extended period of limitation was unavailable, and that determination had attained finality. The amount reversed under protest consequently represented CENVAT credit not payable by the assessee. The precedent denying refund of voluntarily paid duty against a time-barred but legally due demand was inapplicable because the demand in the present matter stood set aside and the assessee had no liability to pay it.

Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to refund of the CENVAT credit reversed under protest; the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory; (ii) Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on structural steel items, welding electrodes and oxygen used for manufacture, repair and maintenance of capital goods and machinery within the factory.

Analysis: The Chartered Engineer's certificates established that the disputed goods were used within the factory for manufacture of capital goods and machinery, rather than for construction of factory sheds, buildings, foundations or support structures. The applicable principles recognise credit for inputs used in manufacture of capital goods deployed in the manufacturer's factory; the exclusion concerning structural items used for construction or foundations did not apply to the established end-use. The earlier Larger Bench view denying such credit stood displaced by subsequent authority.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the disputed structural materials, welding electrodes and oxygen was admissible. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised by show-cause notice for credit availed during August 2008 to April 2009 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The credit had been recorded in statutory RG23A records and disclosed in ER-1 returns. Given the divergent judicial views prevailing on admissibility of credit on the disputed goods, the assessee's belief in eligibility was bona fide. There was no suppression warranting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was time-barred. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The confirmed demand, and consequential interest and penalty, could not survive either on merits or on limitation; consequential relief follows in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inputs demonstrably used in manufacture of capital goods within the factory qualify for Cenvat credit unless used for excluded construction or foundation purposes; disclosure of such credit in statutory records, coupled with a bona fide view amid interpretational dispute, negates suppression for invoking extended limitation.