TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per: M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. - This stay petition and appeal are filed by the Revenue against the OIA No. 14/2009(V-II) C.E. dated 26-2-2009. 2. The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of the duty from the respondent on the product "Press Mud". The respondent is a manufacturer of sugar, molasses and denatured spirit. During the process of which, the product "Press Mud" emerges. Department is of the view that the respondent is manufacturing dutiable and non-dutiable products i.e. "Press Mud" using common inputs and hence having not maintained separate inventory as envisaged under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, they are required to reverse 10% of the value of the "Press Mud". The adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that the demand was made for the clearances of "Press Mud", whereas in the impugned order, the lower authority while deviating from the actual content of the notice had discussed about demand on "Bio-Compost I Enriched Press Mud". This aspect is beyond the scope of the notice. From the connected as file it is also observed that the demand has been made on the basis of an audit objection. The appellants in their letter ReV: AC/5880 dated 25-4-2007 have clearly furnished the details of the clearances of "ENRICHED PRESS MUD CAKE (510-COMPOST)" as desired by the Department and in the remarks column have disclosed that "The press mud which is an unmarketable waste of the Sugar unit will be mixed with spent wash of the Distillery and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'rate of duty - Press mud not excisable and no case of Revenue that effluents from distillery excisable - Admixture of two waste materials also a waste material - Biocompost not excisable to excise duty - Rule 57CC ibid not Invocable - Section 3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 Pressmud - Excisablifty - Pressmud held to be non-marketable by Apex Court in case of Titawl Sugar Complex [2003 (152) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.)] - Press mud not excisable - Section 3 of Central Excise Ac4 1944." 6. We find that the above findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are in consonance with the law as has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Tirunelveli v. Dharani Sugars Chemicals Ltd. [2008 (232) E.L.T. 633 (Tri. - Chennai)], which has been follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
