TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 910X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the manufacture of dutiable goods, namely, Sugar and exempted goods, namely, electricity. In the present case, the appellant, during the relevant period, has not taken any credit on the input services used in the generation of electricity - no input or input services has been used in the present case in the manufacture of exempted goods i.e. Bagasse/electricity - demand of 6% on the value of electricity sold to Karnataka Electricity Board is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20445/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21717/2018 - Dated:- 12-11-2018 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Sridharan, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. K.B. Nanaiah, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CCR on the ground that the appellant has availed credit of common inputs and input services for use in the manufacture of dutiable final product, namely, Sugar and exempted goods, namely, Electricity and Bagasse. The appellant reversed the credit of inputs and input services used in the generation of electricity and thereafter, the said SCN was dropped in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in DSCL Sugars Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) holding that all input and input services on which credit was taken were used in the manufacture of Sugar and that provisions of Rule 6 is not attracted to Bagasse being waste emerging in the process of manufacture of Sugar and to electricity generated from Bagasse. The presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, shall follow any one of the following options: (i) pay an amount equal to 6% of value of the exempted goods and exempted services; or (ii) pay proportionate credit on inputs input services under Rule 6(3A); or (iii) maintain separate accounts for inputs as per Rule 6(2)(a) and pay proportionate credit on input services on the basis of value of exempted goods as provided under Rule 6(3A). 4.1 He further submitted that by the impugned order, the demand of an amount equal to 6% of the value of the exempted goods, namely, electricity sold outside the factory on the ground that the appellant has failed to maintain separate account of receipt of inputs or input services used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, namely, Sugar a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Corporation Ltd.- 2015 (321) ELT A223 (A.P.). (viii) Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. UOI- 2017 (350) ELT 291 (Tri. Del.). 4.2 Learned counsel also submitted that even after amendment to Rule 6 vide Notification No. 6/2015 dated 01.03.2015, there is no change in legal position and demand under Rule 6(3) is not sustainable in case of removal of non-dutiable waste/by-product emerging during the process of manufacture of dutiable goods as held in the following decisions: (i) Eco Cane Sugar Energy Ltd. Cs. CCE 2018-TIOL-882-CESTAT-MUM. (ii) Sahakar Shiromani Vasantrao Kale SSK Ltd. Vs. CCE 2017-TIOL-4127-CESTAT-MUM. (iii) Menon and Menon Ltd. VS. CCE 2017-TIOL-4137-CESTAT-MUM. (iv) Shri Vitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . cited supra. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue is no more Ras integra as far as demand of 6% on the amount of electricity sold outside the factory during the relevant period is concerned. This issue has been settled by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills and the same has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court cited supra wherein it has been held that there cannot be a demand of 6% of the value of exempted electricity sold outside the factory in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) of CCR simply on the ground that the appellant has failed to maintain separate account on receipt of input or input services used in the manufacture of dutiab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
