Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1100 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - waste/by-product - bagasse - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of UOI vs. D.S.C.L. Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down that Bagasse is agricultural waste of sugarcane and the waste and residue of agricultural product during the process of manufacture of goods cannot be said to be result of any process. Admittedly, there is no manufacturing process involved in Bagasse’s production. “Bagasse, pressmud and composed fertilizer” is not ‘goods’ but merely a waste or byproduct therefore Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules shall have no application in the present case and they are bound to come into existence during the crushing of the sugarcane and are an unavoidable agricultural waste. The amendment dated 1.3.2015 in Rule 6 ibid has wrongly been relied upon by both the authorities below while coming to the conclusion that the assessee is liable to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed by them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.S.C.L. Sugar Ltd. has laid down that bagasse being an agricultural waste or residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. If that is so and if bagasse is not manufactured, the same cannot be held to be excisable, in which case the amendment which has been relied upon by the authorities below as well as by the Revenue, would not apply. Even after amendment to Rule 6 ibid, bagasse which emerges as a waste/ byproduct, falls outside the scope of the said Rule - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
|