TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aste and residue of agricultural product, during the process of manufacture of goods cannot be said to be result of any process. There is no manufacturing process involved in pressmud s 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 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-excisa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20 - Dated:- 25-2-2020 - MR. AJAY SHARMA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri J.N.Somaiay, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Anil Choudhary, Deputy Commissioner Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER This Appeal has been filed from the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax,(Appeals-I), Pune in Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-0062-18-19. 2. The issue involved in the instant matter is as to whether after the amendment to Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide notification dated 1.3.2015, pressmud (a waste) generated during the manufacturing of sugar, falls within the ambit of Rule 6 ibid and any amount is recoverable from the Appellant on clearing the said pressmud for consideration a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the demand has to be calculated as per Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records of the case including the case law submitted by the learned counsel during the course of hearing. The issue involved in this appeal is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Appellant s own case for the earlier year in Appeal No. E/87520/2017 titled as Jaywant Sugars Ltd. vs. CCE ST,Pune-II in which this Tribunal vide common order dated 13.12.2017 in a batch of Appeals, while relying upon another decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Shivratna Udyog Ltd. Ors. [Order No. A/ 89563-89568/17/SMB, dated 4.8.2017] allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture and it can safely be concluded that there has to be a manufacturing activity for invoking the aforesaid Rule. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of D.S.C.L. Sugar Ltd.(supra) has laid down that bagasse being an agricultural waste or residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. If that is so and if pressmud is also not manufactured, the same cannot be held to be excisable, in which case the amendment which has been relied upon by the authorities below as well as by the Revenue, would not apply. In all the decisions of the Tribunal which were cited by the learned counsel, a consistent view has been taken that bagasse/pressmud which emerges as a waste/by-product, falls outside the scope of Rule 6 ibid. 5. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
