2018 (8) TMI 1075 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI – By-product, Baggase – explanation I to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 – N/N. 6/2015-CE(NT) dt. 1.3.2015 – case of Revenue is that bagasse being not an excisable goods and cleared from the factory, against consideration, therefore, would come within the scope of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 – Held that:- There is no hesitation to hold that even after amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, ‘bagasse’ which emerges as a waste/by-product, accordingly, falls outside the scope of the Rule, 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Appeal No: E/10352/2018-SM – A/11452/2018 – Dated:- 8-5-2018 – Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri Rohit Lalwani, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra Heard both sides. 2. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-346-2017-18 dtd. 25.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise-Vapi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
riod after 01.03.2015, considering the amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004. He submits that in view of Explanation-I to Rule 6 (1) of CCR, 2004, the department has alleged that Bagasse being an excisable goods, covered under the scope of the amendment, and accordingly, Bagasse cleared during the period from 01.03.2015 to 30.09.2015, attracts 6% of the value of the said bagasse. It is his contention that even though after amendment to said Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, the process of manufacture remains the same and it emerges as a waste/by-product, only and inevitable during the course of manufacture of Sugar and Molasses. He submits that the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Union of India vs. M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd – 2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that the department has dropped the demand on the by-product Bagasse for the period p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the by-product bagasse. Clause (d) and (h) of the said Rule reads as follows:- (d) "exempted goods" means excisable goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to "Nil" rate of duty; (h) "final products" means excisable goods manufactured or produced from input, or using input service; 6. The amended definition of excisable goods and manufacture , have been considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in DSCL Sugar Ltd s case (supra). Their Lordships observed as follows:- 10. In the present case it could not be pointed out as to whether any process in respect of Bagasse has been specified either in the Section or in the Chapter notice. In the absence thereof this deeming provision cannot be attracted. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that 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 d
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =