M\/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., M\/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., M\/s. Sri Srivsgar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 913 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMI
CESTAT BANGALORE – AT
Dated:- 13-11-2018
E\/20986\/2018; E\/20988\/2018; E\/20453\/2018 & E\/20820\/2018 – Final Order No: 21723 \u2013 21726\/2018
Central Excise
MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
\nMr. V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate, Mr. M. A. Nyalkalkar, Advocate For the Appellants
\nMr. K. B. Nanaiah, Asst. Commissioner (AR), Mr. K. Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.S GARG
\nThese four appeals have been filed against the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 and 22.3.2018 wherein the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellants. Since the issue involved in all the four appeals is identical, therefore, all the four appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
\n2. For the sake of convenience, <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n due process, the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 28.2.2017 confirmed the demand for an amount of Rs. 55,65,810\/- under Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,56,581\/- under Rule 15(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and has also ordered for recovery of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal vide the impugned orders. Hence, the present appeals. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n y. But no justification, evidence or reasoning is provided in support of this bald allegation given in the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellants have used common inputs or input services in the generation of electricity, then there is no question of application of provisions of Rule 6(2)\/6(3) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that even the amended provisions of Rule 6 will apply only when it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has manufactured the dutiable as well as non-excisable \/ exempted goods by using common CEVAT credit availed on inputs and input services. Whereas in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence adduced to prove the use of common inputs or input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable goods and non-excisable electricity. Hence, the confirmation of demand for an amount of 6% of value of electricity is not tenable in law. He further submitted that thi<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n appeals is not tenable in law. He further submitted that the amended Rule 6 which is effective from 1.3.2015 is not applicable to bagasse. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n he appellants are liable to reverse the credit, if any, taken on inputs\/input services which have been used in the generation of electricity which have been sold to MSEB. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., M\/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., M\/s. Sri Srivsgar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service TaxCentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 913 – CESTAT BANGALORE – TMICESTAT BANGALORE – ATDated:- 13-11-2018E\/20986\/2018; E\/20988\/2018; E\/20453\/2018 & E\/20820\/2018 – Final Order No: 21723 \u2013 … Continue reading “M\/s. Venkateshwara Power Projects Ltd., M\/s. The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., M\/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., M\/s. Sri Srivsgar Sugar & Agro Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax”<\/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-15069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15069","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=15069"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15069\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
\n4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provision as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedents decided by the Tribunal and the High Court on this very issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has relied upon the Explanatio<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n * Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 160
\n * Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 6
\n * Final Order No. A\/89563-89568\/17\/SMB dt. 4.8.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M\/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors.
\n * Final Order No. A\/90456-90464\/17\/SMB dt. 27.10.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M\/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. & Others.
\n4.2 Further, he relied upon the decision of Ganga Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (346) ELT 450 wherein it has been held that in the absence of evidence about the common inputs\/input services, the provision of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 are not applicable. He also submitted that when it is impossible to maintain common inputs\/input services, then the Department cannot demand 6% amount under Rule 6(3<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue involved in the present appeals is no more res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills cited supra which has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. M\/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. cited supra. Further, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jakarya Sugars Ltd. cited supra has also considered the same issue and after relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mills has held that in the generation of electricity from bagasse, no other input or input service is used and therefore, the electrical energy is neither excisable under Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 no<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n