Case Law Details
Brief Facts of the case
The facts of the case are that assessee is a manufacturer of chocolates and coco products. During the course of the manufacturing final product certain floor spillage and sweeping arises which assessee is destroying. Revenue is of the view that on these sweepings the assessee is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. Therefore, proceedings for the period April 2006 August 2011 were initiated against the assesee to deny Cenvat Credit on the inputs contained in these floor sweepings. The matter was adjudicated, Cenvat Credit was denied consequent demand on duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. On appeal before the Commissioner (A), the Cenvat Credit for the period April 2006 September 2007 has been allowed on the premises that Rule 3(5)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 was not in existent but for the period thereafter he denied Cenvat Credit as per Rule 3(5)(c) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Aggrieved from this order both are in appeal before CESTAT.
Contentions of the Assessee
The assessee contended that input has been taken into the process of manufacturing and during the course of manufacturing these floor sweepings arises. The floor sweeping is the input that has gone into the process of manufacturing. Therefore, these goods are not liable to duty. Consequently, these are waste arising during the course of manufacturing and they are not required to reverse the Cenvat Credit on these goods as held by Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE Indore-2007 (208) ELT 336 (Tri-LB).
The assessee further contended that same view has been taken in the cases of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE Mumbai-III-2014 (310) ELT 775 (Tri-Mum), Kailash Soap Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Bolpur-2008 (231) ELT 176 (Tri-Kolkata).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
