9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 801 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - intermediate goods - press mud and bagasse - exempt goods - demand of an amount of 6% on the value of clearance of the said goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as according to Supreme Court s decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT , bagasse has been held to be an agricultural waste or residue, there could be no manufacturing activity. The press mud has also been held to be a waste and not a manufactured product. As such the amendment made in the provisions of Rule 6 would not have any effect to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant is obligated to pay duty on non-excisable goods bagasse and press mud as per Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the payment of duty on molasses and press mud cleared at nil rate during the period from March 2015 to December 2016. The Revenue contended that the respondents were required to pay 6% on the value of clearance of these goods as per Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty, which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue. The main issue to be determined was whether the amendments in Rule 6(3) from March 2015 would impose a duty on the non-excisable goods like bagasse and press mud. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving M/s. Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. where it was noted that bagasse was considered as agricultural waste or residue, and press mud was classified as waste and not a manufactured product based on a Supreme Court decision regarding DSCL Sugar Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that the amendments in Rule 6 would not impact the present case due to the nature of bagasse and press mud as waste products, as established by the Supreme Court's ruling. In light of the above analysis and the precedent set by the Supreme Court's decision regarding the classification of bagasse and press mud as waste products, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.
|
