2024 (1) TMI 821 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - clearance of exempted goods - bagasse and press mud - separate accounts and inventories have not been maintained as required in terms of the provisions of Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period from April 2016 to June 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra. Revenue s only grievance is that the precedent decision followed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) would not apply to the present case of the respondent as Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was amended subsequent to the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT . It is the case of the Revenue that consequent to such amendment in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules non-excisable goods cleared for a consideration from a factory are to be treated as exempted goods for the purpose of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules for clearances w.e.f. 01.03.2015. The grounds of the Revenue was dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, MEERUT-I VERSUS M/S. BAJAJ HINDUSTHAN SUGAR LTD. 2018 (12) TMI 1649 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD wherein it was observed that It was held in the said Final Order that Press Mud and Bagasse are not arising out of manufacturing activity and the same are agricultural waste and residue and therefore since the said Final Order is applicable in the present case I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by Revenue. There are no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal of revenue dismissed.

Issues: The appeal involves the reversal of credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules in respect of bagasse and press-mud cleared by the respondent.

Summary:
The respondent, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, faced a show cause notice for alleged non-payment under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the clearance of exempted goods. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appeal was filed, and the Order-In-Appeal allowed it. The Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal.

The Revenue argued that due to the lack of separate accounts and inventories, the demand was rightly confirmed. However, the respondent cited a Supreme Court case where it was decided that the amount did not need to be reversed for bagasse and press mud.

The Tribunal found that the Revenue's grievance was based on an amendment to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, stating that non-excisable goods cleared for a consideration are to be treated as exempted goods. Referring to a Board Circular, the Tribunal noted a precedent decision in a similar case where it was held that bagasse and press mud are agricultural waste, not arising from manufacturing activity.

In light of previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's stance on bagasse and press mud, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Order-In-Appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.

*(Pronounced in open court on 18 January, 2024)*

← Previous Next →