TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder No. 20452/ 2016 - Dated:- 23-6-2016 - MR. S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Pradyumna, Advocate For the Appellant Shri Pakshi Rajan, A.R. For the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 40/2013/BM dated 14.3.2013, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the order-in-original dated 08.11.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gulbarga Division, Gulbarga. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is availing Cenvat credit on inputs/inputs s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old to KPTCL. Accordingly, the original adjudicating authority has demanded Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,33,752/- along with interest besides imposition of penalty of ₹ 25,000/- under the provisions of Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, inputs / inputs services on which Cenvat credit has been availed by the appellant were admittedly used for manufacture of sugar and molasses. The question of following procedure laid down under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules arises only in such cases where both dutiable and exempted final products are manufactured by the assessee and Cenvat credit has been availed on common inputs / input services. The only final product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was waste and hence, it was not manufacture of exempted goods; and also electricity was not classifiable under Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff which covered electrical energy generated from sources other than bagasse; electrical energy was neither excisable under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 nor exempted goods under Rule 2(d) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the above cited decision of the Honble High Court of Allahabad was affirmed by Honble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that bagasse is not the result of manufacture and hence not excisable. The learned counsel also submitted that this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
