9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1151 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - electricity generated - period from April 2016 to June 2017 - Rule 6 of the CCR - HELD THAT - It is not a dispute that the issue involved in this appeal is same as was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 17.01.2019 for the subsequent period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 - The Commissioner (Appeals), after analysing the factual position and the provisions of law, allowed the appeal and the appeal filed by the department before the Tribunal was dismissed in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT VERSUS M/S NANGLAMAL SUGAR COMPLEX 2019 (6) TMI 1681 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD Thus, when the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of the respondent itself for the subsequent period, there is no informity in the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed - decided agaist Revenue.
Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing respondent's appeal - Applicability of Rule 6 of CCR to electricity generated by sugar mills - CENVAT credit reversal - Interpretation of relevant legal provisions. Analysis: The Department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 23.07.2019, which set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and allowed the respondent's appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was based on the issue of whether Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applied to electricity generated by sugar mills. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to previous decisions, including the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and the Hon'ble Apex Court rulings, which held that Rule 6 of the CCR was not applicable to electricity generated by sugar mills. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, citing consistency with previous decisions (paragraphs 2-3). The central issue revolved around the Department's contention that the CENVAT credit reversal under Rule 6(3A) of the CCR was not correctly applied by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the factual and legal aspects, concluding that the appeal should be allowed based on previous rulings and the respondent's compliance with the law. The Department's reliance on the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. case was deemed inapplicable as it involved a different fuel source for electricity generation compared to the present case involving bagasse (paragraphs 4-6). The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted that the issue in the present appeal was similar to a previous case for the subsequent period, where the Tribunal had already ruled in favor of the respondent. The Department's argument was refuted based on the consistency of decisions and the application of Rule 6 of the CCR to non-excisable goods like electricity generated by sugar mills. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the relevance of the DSCL Sugar Ltd. judgment in determining the applicability of Rule 6 (paragraphs 8-11). In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal and rendered the cross-appeal by the respondent infructuous. The judgment reiterated the importance of precedent and legal interpretations in determining the CENVAT credit reversal obligations concerning electricity generated by sugar mills, ultimately upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision (paragraph 11).
|
