Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Sh. A.K.Jain, learned Jt. CDR assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenues appeal and emphasized that coal fines arising in course of handling of coal and iron ore fines arising, in course of processing of the iron ore lumps in the respondents plant are manufactured products attracting excise duty which is fully exempted, and hence both the products are exempted goods within the meaning of this term, as defined in Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, that since the respondents have availed GTA Service in respect of which the Cenvat Credit had been taken and have also availed Cenvat Credit in respect of lubricants, and since the Provision of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules have not been complied by maintaining separate account and inventory of the inputs and input services meant for exempted and dutiable final products, the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules would be attracted and demands confirmed under Rule 6(3) have been wrongly set aside.

(a) Conscious manufacture of dutiable final product and exempted final product using common Cenvat Credit availed inputs and/or input services; and

(b) Non maintenance of separate account and inventory of inputs and/or input services meant for manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products.

5.1 In this case the iron ore fines arise as inevitable and unavoidable waste in course of processing of iron ore lumps and similarly the coal fines arise as inevitable and unavoidable waste in course of handling of coal in the respondents plant. The compliance with the provisions of Rule 6(2) regarding maintenance of separate account and inventory of cenvated inputs and input services meant for dutiable final products and exempted final products in such a situation is impossible and it is absurd to expect to comply with this provision in such a case. The provisions of Rule 6(2) read with 6(3) can not be construed to impose an obligation on a manufacturer which is impossible to comply and then go on to penalise him by demands of amounts under Rule 6(3) and penalty for failure to comply with the obligation which is impossible. Lex non cogit ad impossibilia is a well settled legal principle which is applicable to tax matters also. Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2009(233) ELT-301 (Bom.) has held that the Provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is in pari materia with the provisions of Rule 6(3) read with Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, do not apply when while manufacturing a dutiable final product by using Cenvat Credit availed inputs, an inevitable by product fully exempt from duty also arises. I find that same view has been taken by Tribunal in the respondents own case for the previous period reported in 2013(287) ELT-494 and also in the case of CCE, Meerut Vs. Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013(293) ELT-380 (Supra). In view of this I do not find any merit in the Revenues appeals. The same are dismissed. The cross objections stand dispose of.