9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench (in short, "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E/1506/2011, claiming following substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in allowing the appeal of the respondent ignoring the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for clearance of excisable by-products arisen during manufacturing process cleared for consideration from factory? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed a grave error of law in holding that the appellant is not liable to pay 10% of the total value of the said excisable goods cleared at "NIL" rate of duty and allowing the appeal with consequential relief? 2. A few facts necessar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual to 10% of the total value excluding sales taxes in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Rules. Accordingly, show cause notice dated 8.3.2009, Annexure A.1 was issued to the respondent-assessee. The said show cause notice was adjudicated vide order dated 3.2.2010, Annexure A.2, confirming the demand of Rs. 23,20,963/- alongwith penalty of equal amount and interest at applicable rates. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 18.4.2011, Anenxure A.3, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the party and upheld the order dated 3.2.2010. Still not satisfied, the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 11.1.2017, Annexure A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. In Balrampur Chini Mills Limited's case (supra), it was held by the Allahbad High Court that Bagasse emerged as waste/intermediary/by-product during crushing of sugarcane for manufacture of final product sugar. There was no manufacture of exempted goods though it was marketable product but duty could not be imposed on it as there was no manufacturing activity. Hence as there was no manufacture of both dutiable goods as well as exempted goods, Rules, 6(1), 6(2), and 6(3) of the Rules were not applicable. Similar was the position in Hindalco Industries Limited's case (supra) wherein it was recorded by the Bombay High Court that waste and scrap emerge as a by-product in the course of manufacture of other products and were, therefore, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
