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 Upholds Duty on Non-Excisable Goods</h1> <h3>Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut And Commissioner, Central Tax, GST & Central Excise Versus M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd.</h3> Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Meerut And Commissioner, Central Tax, GST & Central Excise Versus M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding the liability to pay duty on non-excisable goods like bagasse and press mud.2. Applicability of precedent decisions in similar cases.3. Effect of the amendment in the provisions of Rule 6 on the liability of the manufacturer.Issue 1: Interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit RulesThe judgment dealt with the issue of whether the manufacturer is obligated to pay duty on non-excisable goods like bagasse and press mud under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal referred to a precedent decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I v/s M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. The Tribunal observed that the manufacturer had an obligation to pay a fixed percentage of the value of non-excisable goods removed when Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services was availed. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue based on this interpretation.Issue 2: Applicability of Precedent DecisionsThe judgment highlighted the relevance of precedent decisions in similar cases. It mentioned that in the case of M/s Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd., the Tribunal had already decided that bagasse and press mud are agricultural waste and residue, not arising out of manufacturing activity. This precedent decision was applied to the present case, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions based on similar facts and circumstances.Issue 3: Effect of Amendment in Rule 6 ProvisionsThe judgment discussed the impact of the amendment in the provisions of Rule 6 on the liability of the manufacturer. It referred to a case where the Tribunal considered the explanations entered in Rule 6(3) from March 1, 2015. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had previously held bagasse to be agricultural waste or residue, indicating no manufacturing activity. Similarly, press mud was considered waste, not a manufactured product. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the amendment in Rule 6 provisions would not affect the liability of the manufacturer in the present case. The judgment emphasized that the amendment did not change the underlying facts and circumstances regarding the classification of bagasse and press mud.In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the interpretation of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, the application of precedent decisions, and the effect of the amendment in the provisions of Rule 6 on the liability of the manufacturer. The Tribunal relied on established legal principles and previous decisions to reach a decision that upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency and adherence to legal interpretations in similar cases to ensure fair and just outcomes.
TaxTMI 