TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. [ 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] clearly held that bagasse is not an excisable item and, that, therefore, a demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, on the ground of sale of electricity generated from bagasse, could not sustain - The inevitable sequitur of the discussion is that the decision of the Tribunal, to allow the appeal of the respondent on the basis of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in GULARIA CHINI MILLS AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [ 2013 (7) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] , was justified, albeit for the reason that, as the electricity sold by the respondent was generated entirely from bagasse, and bagasse itself was in the nature of non-excisable waste/residue, no demand, posited on Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, could sustain against the respondent. The question of law, framed answered in the affirmative, and against the Revenue - Appeal dismissed. - CEAC 19/2017 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2019 - CHIEF JUSTICE MR. C. HARI SHANKAR J. Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, SSC with Mr. Aman Rewaria, Ms. Seema Dolo and Ms. Vipasha Mishra, Advs. Respondent Through: Ms. Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted goods or services and take CENVAT credit only on that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods or in providing output service on which service tax is payable. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following options, as applicable to him, namely:- (i) the manufacturer of goods shall pay an amount equal to five per cent. of value of the exempted goods and the provider of output service shall pay an amount equal to six percent. of value of the exempted services; or (ii) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services subject to the conditions and procedure specified in sub-rule (3A). Explanation I. If the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, avails any of the option under this sub-rule, he shall exercise such option for all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receding financial year, F denotes total value of taxable and exempted services provided, and total value of dutiable and exempted goods manufactured and removed, during the preceding financial year, and G denotes total CENVAT credit taken on input services during the month; (c) the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service, shall determine finally the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods and exempted services for the whole financial year in the following manner, namely:- (i) the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted goods, on the basis of total quantity of inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of said exempted goods, denoted as H; (ii) the amount of CENVAT credit attributable to inputs used for provision of exempted services = (J/K) multiplied by L, where J denotes the total value of exempted services provided during the financial year, K denotes the total value of dutiable goods manufactured and removed plus the total value of taxable services provided plus the total value of exempted services provided, during the financial year and L denotes total CENVAT credit taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), and (v) credit taken on account of excess payment, if any, determined as per condition (f); (h) where the amount equivalent to CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods or exempted services cannot be determined provisionally, as prescribed in condition (b), due to reasons that no dutiable goods were manufactured and no taxable service was provided in the preceding financial year, then the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service is not required to determine and pay such amount provisionally for each month, but shall determine the CENVAT credit attributable to exempted goods or exempted services for the whole year as prescribed in condition (c) and pay the amount so calculated on or before 30th June of the succeeding financial year. where the amount determined under condition (h) is not paid within the said due date, i.e., the 30th June, the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service shall, in addition to the said amount, be liable to pay interest at the rate of twenty four per cent. per annum from the due date till the date of payment. Explanation I. Value for the purpose of sub-rules (3) and (3A) shall have the same mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 108/95-Central Excise, dated the 28th August, 1995, number G. S R. 602 (E), dated the 28th August, 1995; or (v) cleared for export under bond in terms of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; or (vi) gold or silver falling within Chapter 71 of the said First Schedule, arising in the course of manufacture of copper or zinc by smelting; or. (vii) all goods which are exempt from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India and are supplied,- (a) against International Competitive Bidding; or (b) to a power project from which power supply has been tied up through tariff based competitive bidding; or (c) to a power project awarded to a developer through tariff based competitive bidding, in terms of notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2006. 4. The provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, as extracted hereinabove, are clear and categorical, and no para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 2(d) of the Act. By virtue of Rule 2(t) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the definition of excisable goods , as contained in Section 2(d) of the Act, would also apply to the said expression, as it finds place in the Cenvat Credit Rules. Section 2(d) of the Act defines excisable goods thus: (d) excisable goods means goods specified in the 1 st Schedule and the 2nd Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt; Explanation . For the purposes of this clause, goods includes any article, material or substance which is be capable of being bought and sold for consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. The Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Act, as extracted hereinabove, was inserted, w.e.f. 10th May, 2006, by Section 28 of the Finance Act, 2008, and deemed goods, which were capable of being bought and sold, to be marketable. The insertion of this Explanation was obviously intended to cater to situations in which goods, which were otherwise regarded as worthless or, to borrow the expression employed by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. 1995 (77) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is prescribed against SH 2716 0000. This, by itself, may not, however, serve to except electrical energy/electricity from the ambit of the expression excisable goods , in view of the following Additional Note to the General Rule of Interpretation of the Schedule, in respect of the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004, whereby electrical energy was introduced in Chapter 27 of the Tariff: (c) tariff item means a description of goods in the list of tariff provisions accompanying either eight-digit number and the rate of the duty of excise or eight-digit number with blank in the column of the rate of duty. (Emphasis supplied) 12. As we would have occasion to respectfully observe hereinafter, the High Court of Allahabad thinks otherwise. This difference in perception, however, does not impact the outcome of these proceedings, as would be apparent from the reasoning that follows. 13. In the above statutory background, we proceed to reconnoitre the facts. Facts 14. The respondent Nangalamal Sugar Complex was engaged in the manufacture of cane sugar and molasses, on which appropriate duty, under the Act, was paid, and the goods were sold in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 111.44 Lakhs, ₹ 964.25 Lakhs, ₹ 522.63 Lakhs and ₹1062.28 lakhs respectively, the Show Cause Notice alleged that, for the period of dispute, an amount of, was payable by the respondent ₹ 2,81,82,486/-. 17. Though the Show Cause Notice also proposed other demands, the said demands do not constitute subject matter of controversy in the present appeal. Insofar as these proceedings are concerned, the Show Cause Notice required the respondent to show cause as to why ₹ 2,81,82,486/-, be not recovered from it under Section 11(A)(1) of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, along with interest, and as to why penalty be not imposed on it. 18. The respondent showed cause, and was heard, following whereupon Order-in-Original dated 28th August, 2012, was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner ), confirming the aforesaid demand of ₹ 2,81,82,486/-, representing 10%/5% of the price at which the respondent had sold electricity, to UPPCL, during the period 1st January, 2007 to 31st March, 2011, along with penalty and interest. 19. In so directing, the Commissioner upheld th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... desires to reverse the Cenvat Credit, availed by it and relatable to inputs/input services used in the manufacture of exempted goods, but is unable to quantify the exact amount of Cenvat Credit so used, it has necessarily to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 6(3)(i), read with Rule 6 (3A), of the Cenvat Credit Rules. No other manner of reversal of proportionate credit is permissible. This follows from the time-tested principle, enunciated as far back as in Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426 and famously followed by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 as well as by the Supreme Court in a veritable deluge of pronouncements, of which State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358 is probably the most frequently quoted, that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act, and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. 22. Inasmuch as the respondent had neither maintained separate inventory and accounts, of the inputs and input services, of the duty/service tax paid whereon it had availed Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) read with Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as according to the Department, certain common cenvat credit availed inputs such as lubricants, grease, chemicals, etc. had been used in or in relation to the generation of electricity. The crucial question to be decided in this case is as to whether electricity is an excisable goods and only if the electricity can be treated as excisable goods, the provisions of Rule 6(2) read with Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would be applicable. This question stands decided by judgement dated 13.08.2013 of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in respect of writ petitions filed by Gularia Chini Mills Others (judgement dated 13.08.2013) 2014 (34) STR 175 (All) , wherein it was held that electricity is not an excisable goods and, hence, the provisions of Rule 6(2) read with Rule 6(3) are not applicable in respect of electricity sold by the sugar mill to U.P. Power Corporation. It is seen that for this reason only, the matter had been disposed of finally, as there is no dispute about the applicability about the judgement of Hon ble Allahabad High Court to this case. Since in this case, as per the order sheet and as per the records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es , as defined by the Cenvat Credit Rules. (ii) The Supreme Court had held, in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2009 (240) ELT 641 (SC), that Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on inputs, used in the production of electricity, sold outside the factory for consideration, was not admissible to the assessee. Reliance was specifically placed on paras 19 and 20 of the report. (iii) Cenvat Credit was admissible, only on final products, on which duty was paid. As the respondent did not pay duty on the electricity sold to UPPCL, it was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the inputs, or service tax paid on the input services, used in the production thereof. Reversal of the said credit was, therefore, imperative. 29. Additionally, Mr. Amit Bansal submitted, apropos the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gularia Chini Mills 2014 (34) STR 175 (All), that the position in the Tariff, to which the High Court alluded was, apparently, different from the tariff position which obtained during the period of dispute in the present case. He drew attention to the finding, of the High Court, that electrical energy, obtained out of bagasse, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... input services used in the production of electricity which was sold outside the factory. No further demand, therefore, could be raised against the respondent under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit rules. (iii) The Supreme Court had, in its judgment in Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. 1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC), held that, where the assessee was unable to segregate the common inputs that went into the dutiable and exempted products, and was reversing credit accordingly, thereby restoring the credit availed by it, to the Revenue when the exempted final product was cleared, the Credit entry, for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the exempted final product would stand deleted, in which situation it could not be said that the assessee had taken credit for the duty paid on the inputs utilised in the manufacture of the exempted final product. Copies of the challans, whereby the respondent has, purportedly, reversed proportionate Cenvat credit, of the duty paid on the inputs and input services which went into the manufacture of the electricity which was sold, have also been annexed to the counter-affidavit. (iv) On the same issue, for the subsequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e meant to be implemented and trade notices in these matters clarify the stand of the Government for the trade. It is clear, therefore, that the Tribunal failed to interpret the words of the exemption notification No. 201/79 properly and fully. The said notification exempted all excisable goods on which the duty of excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Tariff Item 68 (i.e. inputs) had been used from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as was equivalent to the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. It is clear, however, that ethylene glycol was used in the manufacture of polyester fibre. It appears that methanol arises as a part and parcel of the chemical reaction during the process of manufacture when ethylene glycol interacts with DMT to produce polyester fibre. It is not possible to use a lesser quantum of the ethylene glycol to prevent methanol from arising for producing a certain quantity of polyester fibre. Thus, the quantity of ethylene glycol required to produce a certain quantum of polyester fibre is determined by the chemical reaction. It may be mentioned herein that it is not as if the appellants have used excess ethyle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case, before the Tribunal, was that it had reversed proportionate credit, vis- -vis the total Cenvat Credit availed by it, of the inputs and input services utilised in the manufacture of the goods manufactured/produced by it. Mr. Bansal submitted that the said contention, which was also advanced before the Commissioner, was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the respondent had not produced sufficient material, to enable him to verify the correctness of the submission. The excisability of electricity, not having been disputed by the respondent, Mr. Bansal objected to the Tribunal having held, in favour of the respondent, on that ground. 35. Juxtaposed with this submission, Mr. Bansal also drew attention to the averments, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, before this Court, in response to the appeal of the Revenue, in which the excisability of electricity was admitted. To this, the response of Ms. Lakshmikumaran was that the litigant could not be bound by an admission, in law, even if made before a Court. Admissions of fact bind, she submits, but not admissions of law. 36. We are unable to accede to the submission, of Mr. Bansal, that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law, i.e., the excisability, or otherwise, of electricity. It is required to be decided on the basis of the prevalent statutory position, as reflected in the Act, read with the Tariff and the law laid down on the point, and is not dependent on adjudication of any disputed question of fact. 39. We have already pointed out, hereinbefore, that the statutory provisions, if read, clearly indicate that electrical energy/electricity fell within the ambit of the expression excisable goods , as defined in the Act, as (i) the twin criteria, requiring satisfaction in order for an item to qualify as excisable goods , within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2(d) of the Act, are (a) that the item finds place in the Tariffs, and (b) that the item is marketable which would include every case where the item is bought or sold for a consideration, and (ii) both these indicia stand satisfied in the case of electricity/electrical energy, inasmuch as (a) Sub-Heading 2716 0000 of the Tariff specifically covers electrical energy , and (b) the respondent is, admittedly, selling the electricity, in part, to UPPCL. 40. Statutorily, therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icals Ltd.12. ***** 26. Admittedly, none of these conditions are attracted in the instant case insofar as electrical energy, which is mentioned in Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, covers only those electrical energy which are generated from mineral fuels, mineral oils and products of their distillation, bituminous, substances, mineral waxes, etc. The electrical energy generated from Bagasse is not covered under Chapter 27. Similarly, Chapter 27 does not cover electrical energy produced by solar power, hydro power, wind power or from bagasse. Therefore, we are of the view that electrical energy is not an excisable goods nor it is exempted goods as defined in Rule 2(d) of the 2004 Rules. ***** 28. Hence, manufacture is referred to both dutiable/excisable goods and exempted goods, which are final products. Only then, it is necessary for the manufacturer to maintain separate accounts. Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, (which is pari materia to the erstwhile Rule 57CC) provides that if Cenvat credit has been taken on the inputs which are used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted final products then the assssee is required to reverse the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such inputs but in the instant case, no direct inputs are involved nor any input services have been availed/used and the Commissioner, Central Excise, without any basis observed that the petitioners have admitted that they have availed the Cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in relation to generation of electricity. The petitioner has only used bagasse as raw material which is a waste product, as already held by this Court in writ petition No. 11791 of 2010 and no other inputs or input services has ever been used by the petitioner for generation of electricity which was only generated from bagasse. 34. ... The bagasse, which emerges as a residue of sugarcane, admittedly, is a waste product and this bagasse is used in boiler as a fuel for generation of steam for running the turbine and for boiling the juice for the manufacture of sugar. Turbine generates electrical energy which is used for running the plant and machinery and surplus energy is sold to the U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Furthermore, bagasse is used as fuel in the factory for manufacture of final product and no specific input is used up to the stage of emerging of bagasse which is a waste and which emer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls , for the proposition that electricity/electrical energy did not constitute excisable goods . In Solaris Chemtech Ltd. , the respondent-assessee hereinafter referred to as Solaris was using Low Sulphur Heavy Stock (LSHS) and furnace oil to generate electricity, which was captively consumed for manufacture of final products such as caustic soda and cement. Solaris desired to avail Modvat Credit, under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, of the duty paid on the furnace oil and LSHS. For this purpose, reliance was placed, by Solaris, on clause (c) in the Explanation to Rule 57A(1), which was inserted vide Notification 4/1994, dated 1st March, 1994, which included, in inputs , inputs used as fuel . Solaris contended that LSHS was eligible to be regarded as inputs used as fuel . The revenue contended, per contra, that LSHS was used for manufacturing electricity, which was not excisable and that, therefore, LSHS could not be treated as an input used as fuel. It was also contended that, though LSHS generated electricity, it could not be said that LSHS was used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of the final products, namely caustic soda and cement. Electricity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cto, deemed to be marketable, was introduced only w.e.f. 10th May, 2008. Prior thereto, it was necessary to establish, as an independent fact, the marketability of any item, in order to regard it as excisable . Inasmuch as the judgment in Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12 was itself rendered prior to the addition of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Act, and the period of dispute, in the said case, was prior to 1st April, 2000, it is doubtful whether the clarification , in the opening sentence of para 8 of the report in the said decision, that electricity is not an excisable item could operate as a precedent, for all times to come, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 49. We are, of course, aware of the fact that, in Gularia Chini Mills, the High Court expressly rejected the specific contention, advanced before it, that the insertion of the Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Act diluted the applicability of the judgment in Solaris Chemtech Ltd.12. We are not, however, aware of the exact reason for such rejection, as it is not forthcoming from the judgment. To us, it appears that, after the addition of the Explanation to Section 2(d), in the Act, the declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material or substance capable of being bought or sold for consideration and as such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. Thus, it introduce the deeming fiction by which certain kind of goods are treated as marketable and thus excisable. 8. However, before the aforesaid fiction is to be applied, it is necessary that the process should fall within the definition of manufacture as contained in Section 2(f) of the Act. The relevant portion of amended Section 2(f) reads as under : Section 2(f) - manufacture includes any process - (i) incidental or ancillary to be completion of a manufactured product; (ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the section or Chapter notes of The First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or (iii) which in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or relabelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer; and the word manufacture shal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, in its well-known decision in Kunhaiyammed v. State of Kerala (2000) 6 SCC 359 held thus (in para 27 of the report): A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a nonspeaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has been declared. If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal. We have already dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons stated by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution if there is a law declared by the Supreme Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no Chapter Note in Chapter 27, or Section Note in Section V of the Tariff (which includes Chapter 27), limiting electrical energy , classifiable under Sub-Heading 2716 0000, in any manner. However, we find that Chapter 27 is itself titled Mineral Fuels, Mineral Oils and Products of their distillation; Bituminous substances; Mineral Waxes . Apparently, therefore, the High Court of Allahabad, while opining as it did in paras 26, and 33, of its judgment in Gularia Chini Mills , was interpreting Sub-Heading 2716 0000 in the light of the Heading of Chapter 27. This answers the objection of Mr. Bansal, regarding the observations of the High Court in paras 26 and 33 of Gularia Chini Mills. 56. The High Court, in Gularia Chini Mills , proceeded on three grounds, viz. that (i) bagasse, being in the nature of waste, was not excisable goods , and, therefore, the sale of electricity, generated directly from bagasse, could not justify a demand under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, (ii) as no rate of duty was stipulated against Sub- Heading 2716 0000, applying Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Tariff Act, read with Section 2(d) of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joint ventures, vendors or gives it to the grid for distribution? In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works 1991 (55) ELT 444 (SC) the test laid down by this Court is whether the process and the use are integrally connected. As stated above, electricity generation is more of a process having its own economics. Applying the said test, we hold that when the electricity generation is a captive arrangement and the requirement is for carrying out the manufacturing activity, the electricity generation also forms part of the manufacturing activity and the input used in that electricity generation is an input used in the manufacture of final product. However, to the extent the excess electricity is cleared to the grid for distribution or to the joint ventures, vendors, and that too for a price (sale) the process and the use test fails. In such a case, the nexus between the process and the use gets disconnected. In such a case, it cannot be said that electricity generated is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, within the factory . Therefore, to the extent of the clearance of excess electricity outside the factory to the jo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arding the applicability of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, in the context of electricity generated from bagasse and sold by the assessee, arose in that case. The Supreme Court has, in D.S.C.L. Sugar Ltd. , clearly held that bagasse is not an excisable item and, that, therefore, a demand under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, on the ground of sale of electricity generated from bagasse, could not sustain. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., does not affect this legal position in any manner. 62. The inevitable sequitur of the above discussion is that the decision of the Tribunal, to allow the appeal of the respondent on the basis of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Gularia Chini Mills, was justified, albeit for the reason that, as the electricity sold by the respondent was generated entirely from bagasse, and bagasse itself was in the nature of non-excisable waste/residue, no demand, posited on Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, could sustain against the respondent. 63. In view thereof, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the other contentions, advanced before us by either side. Conclusion 64. Resultantly, the questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
