Shree Narmada Khand Udyog, Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise – Vapi
Central Excise
2018 (8) TMI 1075 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI
CESTAT AHMEDABAD – AT
Dated:- 8-5-2018
Appeal No: E\/10352\/2018-SM – A\/11452\/2018
Central Excise
Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial)
\nFor Appellant (s): Shri Rohit Lalwani, Advocate
\nFor Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR
\nORDER
\nPer: Dr. D.M. Misra
\nHeard both sides.
\n2. 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.
\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar & Molasses falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 1701 & 1703 of the CETA, 1985. During the course of manufacture of Sugar and Molasses, the by-product, namely, “Bagasse” emerges. Since, the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on various inputs, 6% of the value of the said exempt<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Shree Narmada Khand Udyog, Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise – VapiCentral Excise2018 (8) TMI 1075 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMICESTAT AHMEDABAD – ATDated:- 8-5-2018Appeal No: E\/10352\/2018-SM – A\/11452\/2018Central ExciseDr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri Rohit Lalwani, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri L. Patra, AR ORDER Per: … Continue reading “Shree Narmada Khand Udyog, Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Versus Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise – Vapi”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13322\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
\n5. I find that the department has dropped the demand on the by-product “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, against consideration, therefore, would come within the scope of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004. The said provision, reads as follows:-
\n“Expla<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n“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.
\n11. Since if is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application as rightly held by the High Court.”
\n7. Following the aforesaid ratio, I do not have any hesitation to hold that even after amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, 'bagasse' which emerges a<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n