Court rules impugned demands on 'bagasse' and 'press mud' not excisable under CENVAT Credit Rules.

The judgment concludes that the impugned demands quantified on 'bagasse' and 'press mud' are prima facie liable to be set aside. The appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs did not render the items excisable under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Referring to a recent judgment, the court held that bagasse and press mud are not excisable goods. The stay application was allowed, leading to a waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery for the adjudged dues, providing a clear resolution to the case issues.

---

---

Issues:
Impugned demand quantified without payment of duty on 'bagasse' and 'press mud' disposed of by the appellant, failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs, recent judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court regarding bagasse, Tribunal's view on press mud not being excisable, determination of bagasse and press mud as not 'exempted goods' under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the impugned demand quantified at 10%/5% of the sale price of 'bagasse' and 'press mud' disposed of by the appellant without payment of duty. It is noted that the appellant cleared their final products (sugar and molasses) on payment of duty. The impugned demand is based on Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 due to the appellant's failure to maintain separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable products and the bagasse and press mud.

The judgment refers to a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court regarding bagasse, where it was held that bagasse generated in the course of sugar manufacture is not excisable. Additionally, the Tribunal's consistent view on press mud emerging during sugar manufacture not being excisable is highlighted. The Tribunal's position is that bagasse and press mud are not manufactured products, though marketable, leading to the conclusion that they are not 'exempted goods' under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Based on the above analysis, the judgment concludes that the impugned demands are prima facie liable to be set aside. The stay application is allowed, leading to a waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery in respect of the adjudged dues. The decision is pronounced and dictated in open court, providing a clear resolution to the issues raised in the case.

---