9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 262 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Excise Duty on Bagasse - applicability of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - reversal of Cenvat credit when inputs and input services are used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods - HELD THAT - In the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India 2019 (5) TMI 972 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the Hon ble Allahabad High Court has considered the very same issue in the context of the amended provisions namely insertion of Explanation (1) to Rule 6 vide the Circular No.1027/15/2016--CX dated 25.04.2016 and held that The Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX dated 25-4-2016 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition to the extent that it includes Bagasse under the purview of the reversal of credit of input services in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as well as the impugned show cause notice dated 24-3-2017 contained in Annexure-2 are hereby quashed. The Hon ble High Court has also interestingly held that the above circular treating Bagasse to be a non--excisable goods is clearly erroneous and for this reason the above circular with regard to Bagasse was held to be quashed. We find that the above decision has been followed by various CESTAT Benches. The impugned orders demanding Central Excise duty on Bagasse cannot sustain for which reason the impugned orders are set aside - appeal allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether the demand for payment of Excise Duty on Bagasse, as confirmed in the impugned orders, is justified under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise law and the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Specifically, the issue revolves around the applicability of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, regarding reversal of Cenvat credit when inputs and input services are used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods, with Bagasse being claimed as an exempted good under CET entry 23032000 with a nil rate of duty. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue: Whether the demand of Excise Duty on Bagasse, an exempted by-product of sugarcane processing, is sustainable under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal examined Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which mandates reversal of Cenvat credit proportionate to the use of inputs and input services for exempted goods. The appellant contended that Bagasse is exempted from duty under CET entry 23032000 and thus no reversal of credit or duty demand is warranted. The Tribunal relied heavily on the judicial precedent set by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case involving Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd., which addressed the identical issue in the context of the amended provisions including Explanation (1) to Rule 6 introduced via Circular No.1027/15/2016-CX dated 25.04.2016. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had held that Bagasse is not a manufactured final product attracting the obligation of reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Court emphasized that the ratio in the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. DSCL Sugar Ltd. remains authoritative, confirming that Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules does not apply to Bagasse for reversal of credit. Furthermore, the Circular No.1027/15/2016-CX, which sought to include Bagasse under the ambit of reversal of credit, was quashed by the High Court as erroneous. Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's manufacturing process produces Bagasse as a residual by-product after juice extraction from sugarcane. Bagasse is classified under CET entry 23032000 with a nil rate of duty, qualifying it as an exempted good. The Revenue's demand for 6% duty under Rule 6(3) was premised on the contention that inputs and input services were used commonly for manufacturing both dutiable goods (Sugar and Molasses) and exempted goods (Bagasse). However, the judicial precedents clarified that Bagasse does not attract excise duty and no reversal of credit is mandated. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the authoritative judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for excise duty on Bagasse was not sustainable. The appellant's claim that Bagasse is exempted and that reversal of Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) is not applicable was upheld. The Tribunal also noted that the Circular issued by the Revenue, which attempted to bring Bagasse within the reversal provisions, was held to be legally untenable by the High Court and followed by various CESTAT Benches. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for the applicability of Rule 6(3) on the basis of common use of inputs and input services for both dutiable and exempted goods, thereby justifying reversal of credit and demand of duty on Bagasse. The appellant contested this, relying on the classification of Bagasse as exempted and the binding judicial precedents. The Tribunal gave primacy to the judicial rulings, particularly the High Court's quashing of the Circular and the Supreme Court's earlier decisions, thereby rejecting the Revenue's contention. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the demand of Excise Duty on Bagasse as confirmed in the impugned orders was not justified. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal preserved the key legal reasoning from the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as follows: "In light of the above we are of the considered opinion that in absence of Bagasse being a manufactured final product, the obligation of reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is not attracted, and the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd and Others still holds the field. Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules would have no application for reversal of Cenvat Credit in relation to Bagasse. The Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX, dated 25-4-2016, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition to the extent that it includes Bagasse under the purview of the reversal of credit of input services in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as well as the impugned show cause notice dated 24-3-2017 contained in Annexure-2, are hereby quashed." Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
