M\/s. CHEYYAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 827 – ITAT CHENNAI – TMI
ITAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 10-10-2018
E\/41378, 41381 & 41382\/2018, E\/41379 & 41380\/2018 – 42585-42589\/2018
Central Excise
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member
\nFor the Appellant : Shri Derrick Sam, Adv.
\nFor the Respondent : Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR)
\nORDER
\nThe brief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses, were issued five show-cause notices alleging wrongly availed credit for the reasons that they have not maintained separate accounts for common inputs\/input services, used for manufacture of exempted products and dutiable products. It was also alleged that credit is not eligible on certain services. After due process of law, the original authority in respect of allegation of non-maintaining of separate accounts dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.03.201<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n awn by the appellants. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s to the tune of Rs. 2,794\/-. He submitted that the appellants had availed credit of inputs of vehicles as well as insurance for money- in-transit. He submitted that the period involved is prior to 01.04.2011 and in any case, the credit is eligible. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n puts which were used for the production of bagasse at the first stage of manufacture i.e. crushing of sugar cane to extract juice. We have gone through show cause notice wherein it is vaguely mentioned at Page 2 that the appellant has used Cenvatable inputs i.e. lubricant, etc. without giving details. Use of the words “used lubricant, etc.” in the show cause notice gives an impression that the authority issuing show cause notice was not clear about Cenvatable inputs used in the production of bagasse. Further, on perusal of the order-in-original, it transpires that although the adjudicating authority has observed that the appellant has used Cenvatable inputs “lubricant, etc.”, in the manufacture of bagasse (liable to nil rate of excise duty), the adjudicating authority has not referred to any evidence which formed basis of this conclusion. Thus in our view the findings of the Authority is not supported by evidence and is based on unwarranted assumption. Thus in our view the department h<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 01.03.2015, the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand. I find that since there is no credit availed on inputs or input services for products of Bagasse, Press Mud or Electricity even after 01.03.2015, the demand cannot sustain. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. CHEYYAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAICentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 827 – ITAT CHENNAI – TMIITAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 10-10-2018E\/41378, 41381 & 41382\/2018, E\/41379 & 41380\/2018 – 42585-42589\/2018Central ExciseSmt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Derrick Sam, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri R. … Continue reading “M\/s. CHEYYAR CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI”<\/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-14499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14499","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=14499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. In respect of the other three appeals, he submitted that the major part of the demand is in respect of the allegation that the appellants have not maintained separate accounts as required under Rule 6(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 . It is the case of the department that the appellants are manufacturing exempted goods [Bagasse, Press Mud and Electrticity] as well as dutiable products [sugar]. The appellants have not availed any credit on inputs\/input services for production of such goods. The show-cause notice is totally silent as to what are the inputs or input services that appellants have used in the manufacture of such exempted goods. The appellants have availed credit on any „inputs‟ or „input services‟ for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. He explained the process stating that the inputs such as, sugarcane are crushed and the juice is extracted for manufacture of sugar. The remains from the crushing of sugarcane <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. The learned Authorised Representative Shri R. Subramaniyan supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n6. Heard both sides.
\n7. I have perused the show-cause notice as well as the orders passed by the authorities below. It is indeed correct to say that the show-cause notice is silent as to what are the inputs and input services on which the appellants have availed credit for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. It is vaguely stated that the appellants have availed credit on inputs and input services for production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. In the annexure to the show-cause notice also, there is no specific figure shown regarding credit availed separately on inputs and input services. The appellants have repl<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n8. The learned counsel also argued with regard to the credit disallowed on input services relating to insurance on motor vehicles as well as insurance for transit-in-money. The period involved being prior to 04.04.2011, I am of the view the credit is eligible as these services fall within the category of activities relating to business of manufacture.
\n9. From the discussions made above, it is clear that appellants have not availed any credit on inputs\/input services upto the stage of production of Bagasse, Press Mud and Electricity. Appreciating the facts of the case and the decisions discussed above, I am of the view that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned orders are set aside.
\nAppeals E\/41378, 41381 & 41382\/2018 are allowed with consequential<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n