9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The purpose of the CBIC s circulars is to ensure that Revenue applies the same Rule in the same manner in all cases. While the assessee might dispute the interpretation of the Rule by the Revenue, learned authorised representative cannot take a different stand from the CBIC s circular. He is representing the Revenue and if the Rule is to be applied in a particular manner according to the Revenue in all cases as per the Circular, the respondent, who is placed in identical situation cannot be treated differently even if the learned authorised representative is of the opinion that the Circular is not correct. The impugned order is upheld and Revenue s appeal is dismissed. - E/50825/2020-DB - FINAL ORDER NO. 50188/2023 - Dated:- 15-2-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not excisable), the respondent was required to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of the dross and skimmings cleared by it under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR]. Show Cause Notices dated 20.2.2019 and 6.3.2019 were issued to the respondent demanding an amount equal to 6% of the value of the dross and skimmings. These Show Cause Notices were decided by the Joint Commissioner and he confirmed the demand of Rs. 77,37,627 under the proviso to Rule 14 of the CCR read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act] along with interest under section 11AA. He also imposed penalty of equal amount under Rule 15 of CCR read with Section 11AC. 4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture . Similar conclusion was also drawn by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2015 (315) E.L.T. 10 (Bom.)] in relation to dross and skimming of aluminium, zinc or other non-ferrous metals. 4. The issue again came before the Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Indian Sucrose Limited [SLP (C) No. 1700/2021], wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 4-3-2022, referred to its observations in the Union of India v. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. Ors. (supra) holding that Bagasse is non-excisable to which the CENVAT Credit Rules have no application, and held that the Circular dated 25-4-2016 is unsustainable in law. 5. In light of the above ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
