2013 (12) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -“Manufacture” as defined under the Act pertains to any process leading to a “manufactured product” - It is undeniable that press-mud which was generated in the appellant’s factory during the material period was not a “manufactured product”- the fundamental test of manufacture fails - press-mud cannot be considered to be an ‘exempted excisable goods’ - t is also pertinent to note that this commodi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) on the premise that press-mud was an exempted product of the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was liable to pay such amount under Rule 6(3) ibid on account of having used common inputs in the manufacture of their dutiable products (sugar and molasses) and press-mud (supposed to be exempted) during the period of dispute (10-5-2008 to 30-11-2009) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rion for excisability and that the test of manufacture also should be answered. It is submitted that press-mud was not intentionally manufactured by the appellant and the same was generated in the course of manufacture of excisable goods viz. sugar and molasses. In this connection, the learned counsel refers to the definition of manufacture given under Section 2(f) of the Act. On a perusal of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X