2013 (5) TMI 346 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Rules in Favor of Sugar Manufacturer on Excisable Goods Interpretation

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, in a case concerning the interpretation of excisable goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, ruled in favor of ... Determination of excisability of the bio-compost arise from the manufacture of sugar - Held that:- Following the Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI reported in [2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] has held there is no justification for confirmation of demand in respect of bio-compost in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Inasmuch as the issue involved is fully covered by the above declaration of law. Thus, following the same, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. Issues: Interpretation of excisable goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004Issue 1: Interpretation of excisable goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, faced a dispute regarding the classification of bio-compost, produced from press-mud, as excisable goods post an amendment in the definition of excisable goods. The Revenue contended that since the bio-compost was marketed by the appellant, it fell under excisable goods, requiring payment under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, the Tribunal referred to a precedent decision involving Manakpur Chini Mills and Rallis India Ltd., where it was held that there was no justification for demanding payment for bio-compost under Rule 6(3) of the Rules. The Tribunal, following the established legal position, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.Conclusion:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, delivered by Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, resolved the issue of interpreting excisable goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in favor of the appellant, based on the precedent decision and legal principles established in previous cases. The appellant's liability to pay for bio-compost under Rule 6(3)(b) was negated, providing consequential relief.