TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been settled by the decision in the case of INDRESHWAR SUGAR MILS LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS CCE, PUNE III [2017 (11) TMI 1766 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that in case of removal of waste or by-product Rule 6(3) has no application - demand set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/21663/2018-SM, E/21665/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20143-20144/2019 - Dated:- 8-2-2019 - MR. S.S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugarcane. The assessee extracts the sugarcane juice by crushing the said sugarcane, which is further processed and used for the manufacture of sugar and molasses. During this process, impurities which are extracted in the form of bagasse which is nothing but the remnants of sugarcane, after extraction of the juice are referred to as bagasse, which is either used as fuel within the factory or sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,882/- along with interest at appropriate rate and imposed penalty of ₹ 1,85,688/- under Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have a precedence value. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the respondent- assessee by mainly relying upon the following decisions: Shivarathna Udyog Ltd., Solapur vs. CCE, Pune-III: Final Order No.A/89563-89568/17/SMB dated 4.8.2017. Athani Sugars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pay the amount equivalent to 6% of value of bagasse and pressed mud cleared as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 since bagasse is NIL rated product and they failed to maintain separate accounts as prescribed in Rule 6(2) of CCR, 2004. Further, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions relied upon by the appellate authority cited supra. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
