9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri S.Thirumalai, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Prabhu Dass Puli, AR for the Respondent ORDER [Order per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] 1. The facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of edible refined palm oil and are clearing the same at nil rate of duty. The department took the view that one by product viz; Spent Earth arising as a residue in the process of refining crude palm oil is an excisable product falling under Chapter Heading 1522-00-90 and is chargeable to Central Excise duty. After due process of adjudication duty of ₹ 4,29,885- /-was demanded from the appellant on clearances of spent earth during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s DSCL SUGAR LTD,(2015-TIOL-240-SC) Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., [2006 (203) ELT 3(SC)]. As such a provision similar to the one that existed in the erstwhile Modvat scheme may be provided in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to treat waste/scrap produced from inputs on which Cenvat credit has been availed as deemed manufactured products so that appropriate duty/credit may be recovered from the assessee and litigations avoided. Discussion Decision The conference noted that Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s DSCL Sugar Limited (supra) has held that Sections 2(d) and 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have to be satisfied conjunctively for imposition of Excise duty under Section 3 of the Act. The period involved in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c) Instruction F.No.17/02/2009-CX (Pt.) dated 12.11.2014. 2. The issue came before the Hon ble Supreme Court in a case of M/s Union of India and Ors vs M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd [2015-TIOL-240-SC-CX] dated 15.07.2015. Hon ble Supreme Court examined the issue and reaffirmed that bagasse is not a manufactured product. The Judgement applies to both periods, before and after the insertion of explanation in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2008. It may also be noted that Hon ble High Court of Bombay in case of M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [2015(315)E.L.T.10 (Bom.)] came to similar conclusion in relation to dross and skimming of aluminium, zinc or other non-ferrous metal. 3. In the light of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
