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)
\nFor the Appellant : Mr.Himanshu Bansal, Advocates
\nFor the Respondent : Mr.P. Juneja, D.R.
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent 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:-
\nSl.No.
\nAppeal No.
\nSCN date
\nPeriod involved
\nAmount involved
\nO-I-O Date
\nO-I-A Date
\n1
\nE\/52210\/18
\n24.06.18
\nJune 15 to March 16
\n12,22,586\/- & same amt. Of penalty
\n31.03.2017
\n12.03.2018
\n2.
\nE\/52211\/'18
\n29.09.15
\nSeptember<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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\/-. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. Versus CGST CC & C.E., DehradunCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 1151 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 3-10-2018Excise Appeal No.E\/52210 & 52211\/2018 -EX [SM] – A\/53107-53108\/2018Central ExciseMrs. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Mr.Himanshu Bansal, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr.P. Juneja, D.R. ORDER PER: RACHNA … Continue reading “Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. Versus CGST CC & C.E., Dehradun”<\/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-14594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14594","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=14594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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.
\n4. I have heard Mr. Himanshu Bansal, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P. Juneja, ld. DR for the Department.
\n5. 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.
\n5.1 Ld. Counsel has submitted the following case laws:-
\n 1. Union of India vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. – 2015 (322) |E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)
\n 2. M\/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE, Noida in Appeal No. <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n “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):
\n Provided that the CENVAT credit on inputs………………
\n8.1 This rule was amended w.e.f. 01.03.2015 by inserting:
\n Explanation 1:- For the purposes of this rule, exempted goods or final products as defined in clauses (d) and (h) o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n