TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to come into existence during the crushing of the sugarcane and are an unavoidable agricultural waste. The amendment dated 1.3.2015 in Rule 6 CCR has wrongly been relied upon by both the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is liable to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed by them - As per Rule 6(1) ibid read with Explanation-1, non-excisable goods which are manufactured by the manufacturer in his factory will get covered under Rule 6(1) and those goods which were not manufactured, like pressmud in these appeals, will not be covered under Rule 6 despite being non-excisable goods because pressmud is not being manufactured in the factory but it emerged as agricultural waste or residue. It is seen that Rule 6(1) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty. During the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, by product pressmud emerges which is a waste/residue by product/ refuse. The period involved in the Appeal is from January, 2016 to March, 2017. The assessee are availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on various input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules. According to Revenue, pressmud is sold by the Appellant but they ae not paying any excise duty on it since the tariff rate of duty for pressmud is NIL and therefore it is exempted from whole of the duty of Central Excise. The assessee are not maintaining any separate account of inputs/ input services used for manufacture of both exempted and duty paid goods as provided in Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt upto this Tribunal, in support of his submission that reversal of Cenvat Credit under Rule 6 is not required in respect of waste or byproduct or refuse generated during the process of manufacturing. The list of the cases cited by learned counsel are as under:- (i) M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. UOI; 2019(5)TMI 972 (All.HC) (ii) M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. vs. Commr.CGST; 2019(2) TMI 379-Ces.-Mum (iii) CCT, Pune-II vs. Chhatrapati SSK Ltd.; 2019(2) TMI 1301- Cestat Mumbai (iv) M/s.Pannageshwar Sugar Mills Ltd.vs.CCE ST; 2018(10) TMI 966-Ces.Mum (v) M/s.Shri Vitthalsai SSK Ltd. vs. Commr.CGST CE; 2018(10)TMI 1153-Ces.Mum (vi) Kichha Sugar Co.Ltd.vs.CGST CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production. Bagasse, pressmud and composed fertilizer is not goods but merely a waste or byproduct therefore Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules shall have no application in the present case and they are bound to come into existence during the crushing of the sugarcane and are an unavoidable agricultural waste. The amendment dated 1.3.2015 in Rule 6 CCR has wrongly been relied upon by both the authorities below in coming to the conclusion that the assessee is liable to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed by them. As per Rule 6(1) ibid read with Explanation-1, non-excisable goods which are manufactured by the manufacturer in his factory will get covered under Rule 6(1) and those goods which were not manufactured, like pressmud in these appeals, wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
