TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts, during the process of manufacture of goods cannot be said to be result of any process. There is no manufacturing process involved in Bagasse’s production. “Bagasse” is not ‘goods’ but merely a waste or by-product, therefore Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable in the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/87233/2018 - A/87623/2018 - Dated:- 12-10-2018 - Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D.S. Chauhan, Superintendent (AR) ORDER PER: AJAY SHARMA This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. NGPII/ APPL/13/2017-18 dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of CGST Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provisions of Rules 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dated 21.12.2016 dropped the demand for the period from September, 2014 to July, 2015, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Others Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) ELT 769 (S.C.) but confirmed the demand of ₹ 3,71,899/- for the period from March, 2015 to July, 2015, in view of the amendment made in Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 01.03.2015, along with interest and penalty. On filing the appeal by the Appellant, the Learned Commissioner, CGST Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur-II vide impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50- CESTAT-MUMBAI (vii) M/s Shivratna Udyog Ltd. Others etc. Vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise - 2017 (9) TMI 985- CESTAT MUMBAI (viii) Shree Narmada Khand Udyog, Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) - 2018 (8) TMI 1075 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (ix) M/s Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida - 2018 (8) TMI 160 CESTAT ALLAHABAD (x) M/s Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C. C.E. S.T. Noida - 2018 (8) TMI 6 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD 6. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submitted that the subsequent Circular of the Board, being Circular No. 1027/15/2016-CX dated 25.04.2016, issued after amendment made in Rule 6(1) of CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for a consideration from the factory. Reading the aforesaid explanation-I reveals that non-excisable goods cleared for consideration, would fall within the scope of the said Rule. The contention of the Revenue is that since, the exempted goods , final products defined under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in clause (d) and clause (h), respectively include non-excisable goods, which is cleared for consideration from factory, hence Rule 6(1) is applicable to the by-product bagasse. Clause (d) and (h) of the said Rule reads as follows:- (d) exempted goods means excisable goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to Nil rate of duty; (h) final p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by this Tribunal :- I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. The fact of the case is that the appellants goods in dispute are bagasse, press-mud, boiler ash and compost which are either waste or by-products. The issue is to be decided is whether in terms of Rule 6(3) an amount of 6% is required to be paid on the clearance of such waste/by product. The issue has been considered in various judgments. In the case of Rallies India Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.) the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that the provisions of Rule 57CC which pari materia to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, in case of waste arising during the course of manufacture of final product, Rule 57CC is not applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by product or waste. In case of by product or waste the decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Rallies India Ltd.(supra) settled the issue that case of by product or waste cenvat credit cannot be denied. As provided in para 3.7 of Chapter 5 of CBEC Circular which reads as under: 3.7 CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of the amount of inputs contained in any of the waste, refuse or bye product, Similarly, CENVAT is not to be denied if the inputs are used in any intermediate of the final product even if such intermediate is exempt from payment of duty. The basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, and whether dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
