2007 (8) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being 8% of the sale price of the Enriched Press Mud and Vermi Compost cleared by M/s. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., during 2002-03 and 2003-04, demanded by the original authority and affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. 2. After hearing both sides on the application, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, the appeal against the impugned order .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 04 (176) E.L.T. 819 (Tri.-Del.), wherein the Tribunal had decided that bagassee was a waste obtained during the manufacture of sugar and that such waste could not be regarded as a final product attracting Rule 6 of CCR, 2002. He has also cited the decision of the Tribunal in EID Parry (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 734 (Tri.-Chen.). In that case it was decided that chemicals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pressmud. In order to attract provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004 it is necessary that the goods involved are final products manufactured using common inputs. Pressmud being a waste product, no amount can be demanded in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2002 in respect of biofertilizers prepared from such press mud. I find that the impugned order is therefore, not sustainable. Accordingly, I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X