9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in case of by product or waste cenvat credit cannot be denied - in case of removal of waste or by-product Rule 6(3) has no application - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/86583, 86584, 85996, 86364, 86361, 86076/17 - A/89563-89568/17/SMB - Dated:- 4-8-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R) Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.), Shri S. V. Nair, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) for respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses which are cleared on payment of duty. Apart from this, during the course of manufacture some by-product namely Bagasse, Press-mud, Boiler Ash and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-II Vs. Maa Mangla Ispat Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (49) STR 503 (Tri.-Del.) (viii) Commissioner of C.Ex., Jaipur-I/Jallandhar Vs. Goyal Proteins Ltd. - 2015 (325) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Del.) 3. On the other hand, Shri S.V. Nair, Ld. Asstt. Commr. (A.R.), Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) and Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. They submit that the appellants are relying on the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd. Wherein it was decided that even in the case of non-excisable goods Rule 6(3) will not apply. However subsequent to the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment and explanation inserted under Rule 6(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issue was considered in the case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the Sulfuric Acid which is generated as a by product recovery of 8% under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is not correct. In view of the above judgments the issue whether Rule 6(3) is applicable in case of removal of non-dutiable waste or by product is settled in favour of the assessee. As regard the submissions made by Ld. ARs that after insertion of explanation in Rule 6(1), even in case of non-excisable goods, the reversal under Rule 6(3) is required. In this regard he referred to the Hon ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of DSCL Sugar Ltd.(supra). Wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that in case of non-man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
