Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. Versus CGST CC & C.E., Dehradun
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 1151 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 3-10-2018
Excise Appeal No.E/52210 & 52211/2018 -EX [SM] – A/53107-53108/2018
Central Excise
Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Mr.Himanshu Bansal, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr.P. Juneja, D.R.
ORDER
PER: RACHNA GUPTA
Present order dispose of 2 appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. DDN – CE-000-APPL-DDN-RUDRAPUR -24-25 17-18 dated 12.03.2018. Though there have been 2 show cause notices and 2 Orders-in-Original but both the Order in Originals have been adjudicated vide one common Order-in-Appeal. Hence, a common order for both these appeals. Details are as follows:-
Sl.No.
Appeal No.
SCN date
Period involved
Amount involved
O-I-O Date
O-I-A Date
1
E/52210/18
24.06.18
June 15 to March 16
12,22,586/- & same amt. Of penalty
31.03.2017
12.03.2018
2.
E/52211/'18
29.09.15
September
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
alty was also proposed. The demand confirmed by the Order-in- Original dated 31.03.2017 & 23.11.2016 were Rs. 12,22,586 & Rs. 3,41,336/-.
3. Being aggrieved of both the orders, appellant moved an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed both the appeals vide the impugned common order. Being aggrieved is the present appeal.
4. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Bansal, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P. Juneja, ld. DR for the Department.
5. It is mentioned on behalf of appellant that the goods in dispute are bagasse and press-mud. These goods are impressed upon to be the waste being by-product of manufacture of V P Sugar & molasses. Department is alleged to have confirmed the demand for an amount of 6% to be required to be paid on the clearance of such waste relying upon Rule 6 (3) of CCR.
5.1 Ld. Counsel has submitted the following case laws:-
1. Union of India vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. – 2015 (322) |E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)
2. M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida in Appeal No.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
re. These are only an agricultural waste and residue which itself is not the result of any process and in the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified that since it is not a manufacture, Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules shall have no application. For the better appreciation Rule 6 is reproduced herein below:-
“Rule 6(1) The Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, or input service used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods and their clearance upto the place of removal or for provision of exempted service except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2):
Provided that the CENVAT credit on inputs………………
8.1 This rule was amended w.e.f. 01.03.2015 by inserting:
Explanation 1:- For the purposes of this rule, exempted goods or final products as defined in clauses (d) and (h) o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =