TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Grants Waiver in Sugar Byproducts Appeal</h1> <h3>SHARAD SSK LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR</h3> SHARAD SSK LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLHAPUR - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 468 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Appeal for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty related to the manufacturing of sugar byproducts like bagasse, press mud, and bio-compost. Dispute over whether these items should be considered manufactured goods and subject to duty.Analysis:The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty related to the manufacturing of sugar and molasses byproducts like bagasse, press mud, and bio-compost. The Revenue contended that the appellants availed credit for common inputs in the manufacture of final products, both dutiable and exempted, without maintaining separate accounts. Therefore, the Revenue demanded appropriate duty under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, on the price of bagasse, press mud, and bio-compost. The core issue revolved around whether these items should be considered manufactured goods subject to duty. The appellants argued that these items are waste products and cited legal precedents to support their stance, including decisions from the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal.The Revenue argued that bagasse and press mud are excisable goods, produced during the manufacture of sugar and molasses, and subject to nil rate of duty. They relied on the Central Excise Tariff Act and legal interpretations emphasizing that goods produced during manufacturing are excisable. The Revenue invoked Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which requires maintaining separate accounts for exempted goods. As the appellants did not maintain separate records, the Revenue demanded payment based on the price of bagasse and press mud.Regarding bagasse, legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, supported the appellants' argument that bagasse is a waste product, not a final manufactured item exempt from duty. The Tribunal also ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that bagasse is a residue from sugarcane crushing, not a separate final product. Similarly, in the case of press mud, the Tribunal held that it is a waste product not subject to excise duty, as specified under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal emphasized that press mud and sludge are not excisable goods subject to duty, and the demand for duty on these items was deemed unsustainable.The Tribunal also considered the case of bio-compost, where it was held that the demand for duty on bio-compost cleared by sugar manufacturers was not valid. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and previous decisions to support this stance. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, waived the pre-deposit of dues, and allowed the appeals, citing the settled nature of the issues based on previous legal decisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of legal precedents and interpretations in determining the classification and taxation of manufacturing byproducts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
