2018 (8) TMI 1075 - AT - Central Excise

By-product, Baggase - explanation I to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - N/N. 6/2015-CE(NT) dt. 1.3.2015 - case of Revenue is 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 - Held that - There is no hesitation to hold that even after amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004, bagasse which emerges as a waste/by-product, accordingly, falls outside the scope of the Rule, 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal regarding demand on Bagasse
- Interpretation of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004
- Applicability of Explanation I to Rule 6
- Consideration of Bagasse as non-excisable goods
- Comparison with DSCL Sugar Ltd's case
- Decision on appeal and consequential relief

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an order-in-appeal regarding the demand on Bagasse, a by-product emerging during the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses. The appellant had availed Cenvat credit on inputs, leading to a demand for 6% of the value of exempted Bagasse cleared during a specific period. The appellant contested the demand citing the amendment to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and the applicability of Explanation I to Rule 6.

The appellant argued that Bagasse, being a waste/by-product inevitable in the manufacturing process, should not be subject to the 6% demand. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Union of India vs. M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd, highlighting the nature of Bagasse as agricultural waste and residue not falling under the definition of excisable goods.

The Revenue, however, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the demand on Bagasse. The Tribunal analyzed the amended Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and the insertion of Explanation I, which expanded the scope to include non-excisable goods cleared for consideration from the factory. The Tribunal referred to the definitions of "exempted goods" and "final products" under the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 to support the Revenue's contention.

Drawing from the DSCL Sugar Ltd case, the Tribunal emphasized that Bagasse, being a waste/by-product without a specified process, does not qualify as excisable goods subject to Rule 6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and any consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that Bagasse falls outside the scope of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 even after the amendment. The decision was based on the nature of Bagasse as a waste/by-product, aligning with the principles established in the DSCL Sugar Ltd case.