TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... neration of electricity from bagasse, no other input or input service is used and therefore, the electrical energy is neither excisable under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 nor exempted goods and hence, Rule 6 is not applicable. The demand of 6% of the value of electricity sold to various companies is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20434/2018-SM, E/20435/2018, E/20552/2018, E/20660 - 20662/2018 - Final Order No. 20122-20127/2019 - Dated:- 31-1-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. M. S. Bidarkoti Mr. Raghavendra B Hanjer, Advocates (E/20434-20435/2018), Written Submissions (E/20052/2018), Mr. Pradyumna G.H. Advocate, None (E/20660 - 20662/2018), CS. Sudheendra P. Ghali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06,012/- being the value of the electricity sold to outside agencies i.e., power distribution companies during the period March 2015 under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Even though, the appellants had used certain inputs which were common to the manufacture of dutiable goods as well as exempted goods, they had neither maintained separate records of inputs/input services, as provided in Rule 6(2), nor paid an amount equal to 6% of the value of such exempted goods. The Original Authority vide Order-in-Original confirmed the demand of duty along with interest at appropriate rate and penalty is also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven in the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellants have used common inputs or input services in the generation of electricity, then there is no question of application of provisions of Rule 6(2)/6(3) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that even the amended provisions of Rule 6 will apply only when it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has manufactured the dutiable as well as non-excisable / exempted goods by using common CENVAT credit availed on inputs and input services. Whereas in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence adduced to prove the use of common inputs or input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 6 Final Order No. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dt. 4.8.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. Ors. Final Order No. A/90456-90464/17/SMB dt. 27.10.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. Others. Tribunal s Final Order dated 31.12.2018 has set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant. 4.2 Further, he relied upon the decision of Ganga Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (346) ELT 450 wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence about the common inputs/input services, the provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. He also submitted that when it is impossible to maintain common inputs/input ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 2017 (49) STR 506 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the appellants are liable to reverse the credit, if any, taken on inputs/input services which have been used in the generation of electricity which have been sold to MSEB. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills cited supra which has been approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. cited supra. Further, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jakarya Sugars Ltd. cited supra has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
