TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - E/70731/2016-EX[SM] - A/71206/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 6-10-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Rajeev, Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue in this appeal is that the appellant have a sugar mill and have cleared Bagasse and Press Mud and have paid duty by way of reversal under the provisions of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, under protest for the period April, 2010 to August, 2012. Whether the refund claim filed on 13/06/2013 is time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that for the preceding period August, 2009 to March, 2010 the appellant was clearing Bagasse. The Department was of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final product) and bagasse (exempted final product. Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any inputs-chemicals, etc., having been used at that stage. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal and stay applications are allowed. 3. In order to avoid, further litigation and to also avoid the liability of interest by way of abundant caution, the appellant started reversing Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 upon clearance of Bagasse/Press Mud since April, 2010. This reversal was being made by them under protest, which is evident as they were contesting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) who was pleased to uphold the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, rejecting the appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The learned Counsel urges that as it have been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal, as aforementioned in their own case and also subsequently by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) that Bagasse being only an agricultural waste and not being a result of any process, not covered in definition of manufacture under Section 2 (f) of the Act and there being no Chapter note or Section note in the Central Excise Tariff declaration process in respect of Bagasse as amounting to manufacture. Thus, notwithstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
