9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asses and ethyl alcohol falling under Chapter 17 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. They are also engaged in the manufacture of electricity, classifiable as Electrical Energy under Tariff Item No.27160000 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985, which is used captively for manufacture of excisable goods and the excess/surplus quantity is sold to outside to power distribution companies for a consideration without payment of duty as no rate of duty has been prescribed in the CETA, 1985. Therefore, the CENVAT credit involved in input and input services related to that quantity of electricity sold to outside agency is not eligible to the appellant. The department has demanded a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer supply, maintenance and repair, telephone, courier, Chartered Accountant, insurance service, have been used commonly in the manufacture of dutiable final product and non-excisable electricity. But no justification, evidence or reasoning is provided in support of this bald allegation given in the show-cause notice itself. He further submitted that in the absence of any material evidence to show that the appellant has used common inputs or input services in the generation of electricity, then there is no question of application of provisions of Rule 6(2)/6(3) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that even the amended provisions of Rule 6 will apply only when it is proved beyond doubt that the assessee has manufactured the dutiable as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the amended Rule 6 which is effective from 1.3.2015 is not applicable to bagasse. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 160 * Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (8) TMI 6 * Final Order No. A/89563-89568/17/SMB dt. 4.8.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors. * Final Order No. A/90456-90464/17/SMB dt. 27.10.2017 passed by CESTAT, WZB, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Athani Sugars Ltd. & Others. * Tribunal's Final Order dated 31.12.2018 has set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellant. 4.2 Further, he relied upon the decision of Ganga Kishan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for reversal of proportionate credit does not arise. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that as per the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sharad S.S.K. Ltd. vs. CCE, Kolhapur: 2017 (49) STR 506 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein the Tribunal has held that the appellant is liable to reverse the credit, if any, taken on inputs/input services which have been used in the generation of electricity which have been sold to MSEB. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is no more res integra and has been settled by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Gularia Chini Mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
