2014 (3) TMI 668 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Cenvat Credit - the waste bagasse emerged - Applicability of Rule 6 for production of exempted and non-dutiable goods - Held that - Following decision of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India and others 2013 (1) TMI 525 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and that bagasse was held to be a marketable product but not a manufactured product. The Hon ble High Court so held even after considering the aforesaid amendment to Section 2(d) of the Act. On this basis, a demand raised on the party in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004 came to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand raised on the appellant under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding bagasse being considered an "exempted" final product.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore, delivered by P G Chacko, addressed the appellant's application seeking waiver and stay concerning the adjudged dues. After reviewing the records and hearing both parties, the Tribunal deemed the appeal suitable for summary disposal, proceeding after dispensing with predeposit. The primary focus of the appeal was a demand raised on the appellant under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, involved in the manufacture and clearance of sugar and molasses, faced allegations from the department regarding the clearance of bagasse, a waste product from sugarcane crushing, without duty payment during the material period. The department contended that bagasse was an "exempted" final product, necessitating payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004. The impugned order was a result of the adjudication of this show-cause notice.

The appellant's counsel referenced a similar case before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, where bagasse was considered a marketable but not a manufactured product, even post the amendment to Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. The High Court's decision in that case, Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India and others, led to the setting aside of a demand under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR, 2004. The appellant highlighted the absence of any binding judicial precedent to the contrary in the present case. Based on these arguments and precedents, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Consequently, the stay application was also disposed of, favoring the appellant.