Waiver of Pre-deposit for Sugar Manufacturer: Bagasse Not Excisable

The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for adjudged dues related to CENVAT credit denial and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's claim, emphasizing that bagasse, considered waste and not consciously manufactured, did not qualify as excisable goods. The appellant's compliance with reversing the credit before the show cause notice entitled them to the relief sought. The order granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for both appeal numbers based on previous Tribunal decisions upheld by the Supreme Court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant.
2. Dispute regarding CENVAT credit denial and penalties for two appeal numbers.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in sugar manufacturing, sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for adjudged dues. In the first appeal, bagasse generated as waste was disposed of by sale, while in the second appeal, it was used as fuel for electricity generation. The reversal of CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,35,806/- in the second appeal was not disputed. The appellant claimed a prima facie case based on a Tribunal decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The Superintendent argued that the decision might not hold after an explanation was inserted in the definition of "excisable goods" under the Central Excise Act.

2. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found no merit in the Superintendent's objections. The explanation cited by the Superintendent focused on marketability, stating that goods capable of being bought and sold are deemed marketable. The Superintendent argued that bagasse, listed in the Central Excise Tariff Act, should be considered excisable. However, marketability alone does not determine excisability. Bagasse, being waste and not a consciously manufactured product, did not qualify as excisable. The appellant's case against denial of CENVAT Credit was supported by a previous Tribunal decision upheld by the Apex Court. The appellant had reversed the credit before the show cause notice issuance, entitling them to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in both appeals. The order was made accordingly.

---