2015 (1) TMI 1300 - AT - Central Excise

Demand alongwith interest and penalty - Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods - non-maintenance of separate accounts for inputs and input services - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY and decision of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT held that where by-products waste or scrap emerge during the course of manufacture emergence of such product cannot be considered as manufacture of final products comprising of exempted goods. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of waste, scrap, and dust during plywood manufacture as excisable goods
- Liability of the appellant for not paying duty on the emerging items
- Imposition of demand under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
- Penalty imposition due to lack of separate accounts for inputs and input services

Classification of Waste as Excisable Goods:
The appellant, engaged in plywood manufacture, sold waste, scrap, and dust emerging during production. The authorities considered these items as excisable goods, leading to a conclusion that the appellant was manufacturing both exempted and dutiable goods. The appellant argued that these items should be treated as waste or by-products, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, referencing cases like Rallis India Ltd. and Hindustan Zinc Ltd., where it was held that the emergence of waste or by-products during manufacturing does not constitute the manufacture of final products comprising exempted goods. The Tribunal found the issue to be covered by the decisions relied upon and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.

Liability for Duty Payment:
Due to not paying duty on the emerging waste, scrap, and dust during plywood manufacture, a demand was imposed on the appellant under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs and input services further complicated the issue. However, the Tribunal's decision on the classification of these items as waste or by-products impacted the liability for duty payment. The appeal was allowed based on the Tribunal's finding that the emerging items should not be considered as final products, thereby affecting the duty payment obligation.

Imposition of Demand and Penalty:
The confirmation of demand under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was a significant aspect of the case, along with the imposition of a mandatory penalty due to the appellant's lack of separate accounts for inputs and input services. The Tribunal's analysis, guided by legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant rules, ultimately led to the allowance of the appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly classifying waste, scrap, and dust emerging during manufacturing processes to determine the duty payment obligations and penalty imposition. The appellant received consequential relief following the Tribunal's ruling in their favor.