Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 652 - CESTAT KOLKATANon-maintenance of proper records - non-payment of amount equal to appropriate rate of value of exempted goods u/r 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - I find that the issue is settled in view of the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [2014 (12) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that in the present case it could not be pointed out as to whether any process in respect of Bagasse has been specified either in the Section or in the Chapter notice. In the absence thereof this deeming provision cannot be attracted. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty - Since it is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application. Respectfully following the judgment and the Board's Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX dated 25.04.2016, the appeals filed by the appellant Revenue are rejected.
|