9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri R.K. Gupta, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant are a sugar mill. They avail Cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to their final products. In course of manufacture of sugar, an item called press mud emerges which is the waste component of the cane juice arising in course of the cleaning of the juice. The depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 2.1 Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the issue involved in this case is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Meerut-I v. Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Ind. Ltd. reported in 2004 (176) E.L.T. 819 (T), wherein it was held the bagasses emerging in a sugar mill cannot be call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the judgment of the Tribunal/Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Meerut-I v. Shakkumbari Sugar & Allied Ind. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to this case as during this period, the definition of goods, as given in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, had been amended by addition an explanation according to which, the "goods" includes any article, material or substance which is capabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exempted final products, the manufacturer is required to either maintain separate account and inventory of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final products and the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted final product and take Cenvat credit only in respect of those goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final products or al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a situation the provisions of Rule 6(2) and 6(3) would not apply. Same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High in the case of Rallis India Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.). In view of this, I am of the view the appellant have a prima facie case and hence the requirement of pre-deposit of the amount confirmed under Rule 6(3) and interest is waived for hea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
