TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty. In respect of observations made on the basis of CBEC Circular dated 25.04.2015 (referred in Order of Ld.Commissioner(Appeals), the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/S BALRAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [ 2019 (5) TMI 972 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] has held that That the Circular dated 25-4-2016 interpreting Explanation 1 to Rule 6 has provided that consequently, Bagasse, dross and skimmings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions of both the sides. The Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand of duty for the period May, 2011 to 28.02.2015 in view of CESTAT final order No.75335/2016 dated 02.05.2016 which has been accepted by the Department. The said CESTAT Order has relied upon the case of UOI and Ors. vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] decided by Hon ble Supreme Court. 8. I find that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 entrust certain obligation on the manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services. Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 states that The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this regard is placed on the Order of the Larger Bench of Hon ble CESTAT (Principal Bench) in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Ltd versus CCE, Raipur [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)] wherein, in case of Notification no.:16/2009-CE (N.T.) dated 07.07.2009 has held that amendment to the Explanation 1 to Rule 2(i) of CCR is clarificatory in nature. The aforesaid finding of Hon ble CESTAT was further affirmed by the Central Board of Excise Customs through Depratmental Instruction dated 08.07.2010 issued under F.No.: 267/11/2010-CX8. Thus, it may safely be inferred that by inserting Explanation in Rule 6 through Notification no.: 06/2015-C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2015, no new provision was brought in the statute rather the intention of the legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Therefore, in terms of Rule 6(3)(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, they were required to pay an amount equivalent to @ 6% of the consideration received against these exempted goods amounting to Rs.1,83,39,094/-. 4. We have heard both the sides and considered the submissions made in Appeal and during the course of argument. 5. In the case of UOI Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)], the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 9 . The Revenue sought to cover the case under sub-clause (ii) as per which the process which is satisfied in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notices of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reversal of credit of input and input services, in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The circular therefore treating Bagasse to be a non-excisable goods, is clearly erroneous, and for this reason also the Circular dated 25-4-2016 is liable to be quashed with regard to Bagasse. 7. In the case of UOI Others vs. Indian Sucrose Ltd., while dismissing the SLP filed by UOI on the same issue, the Hon ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- In view of the judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. Ors. reported in 2015 (322) ELT 769 holding Bagasse to be non-excisable to which the Cenvat Credit Rules had no application, the Circular dated 25.04.2016 is unsustainable in law, 8. Hence the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
