M/s Athani Sugars Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of CGST, Kolhapur (Vice-Versa)
Central Excise
2019 (2) TMI 379 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 3-1-2019
Appeal No. E/88189/2018, E/88779/2018 – A/85009-85010/2019
Central Excise
DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant
Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent
ORDER
Per: Dr. D.M. Misra
These two appeals are filed, one by the assessee appellant and other by the Revenue challenging the same Order-in-Appeal No. PUN-EXCUS-001-APP-0063-2018-19 dated 05.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Pune-I.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 1701 and 1703 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that during the period March, 2015 to May, 2015, the appellant had cleared the exempted goods namely, Bagasse emerged as a by-
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
UM. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and not sustainable.
4. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. I find that the issue of applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to bagasse which emerges during the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, has been settled taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. – 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid cases. In Shree Narmada Khand Udyog (supra), this Tribunal observed as follows: –
“5. I find that the department has dropped the demand on the byproduct “Bagasse” for the period prior to 01.03.2015. However, on insertion of explanation I to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 by virtue of Notification No. 6/2015-CE(NT) dt. 1.3.2015 a view was taken by the department that bagasse being not an excisable goods and cleared from the factory, agains
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l” 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 definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty.
11. Since if is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application as rightly held by the H
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =