Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1649 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Whether the explanations entered in Rule 6(3) w.e.f. 01st March, 2015 would have the effect of the assessee being under a legal obligation to pay duty on the non-excisable goods bagasse and press mud? - HELD THAT:- It was observed that inasmuch as according to Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Union of India v. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT], bagasse has been held to be an agricultural waste or residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. The press mud has also been held to be a waste and not a manufactured product. As such the amendment made in the provisions of Rule 6 would not have any effect to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- It stands clarified by the learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue that the amount of duty involved for the month of March, 2015, which is being contested by the Revenue is less than ₹ 20.00 Lakhs - Revenue’s appeal is also required to be dismissed on the basis of Litigation Policy. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|