2017 (11) TMI 870 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed: No Liability to Reverse Amount under CENVAT Credit Rules

CC., CE & ST, Hyderabad-I Versus M/s Trident Sugars Ltd.

The Revenue's appeal against the reversal of an amount equivalent to 10% or 5% for the value of goods - bagasse and pressmud cleared products was ... CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate set of books - Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - CBEC Circular dated 25.04.2016 withdrawal of the pressmud and bagasse - bagasse and pressmud are arising during the manufacture of sugar. Hence the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] , will apply equally two products, where it was held that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Reversal of amount equivalent to 10% or 5% for the value of goods - bagasse and pressmud cleared products.2. Applicability of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.3. Interpretation of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court.4. Validity of the impugned order and imposition of penalties.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No.10/2012 regarding the reversal of an amount equivalent to 10% or 5% for the value of goods - bagasse and pressmud cleared products during a specific period. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised, along with interest and penalties. The First Appellant Authority reversed the proportionate CENVAT credit attributable to the cleared products in favor of the appellant and set aside the Order-in-Appeal. The Revenue challenged this decision.2. The Revenue argued that the appellant, by not opting for maintaining separate accounts under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, was liable to reverse the amount equivalent to 10% or 5% of the value on pressmud and bagasse. The Revenue cited relevant decisions to support their stance.3. Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the Revenue's argument was defeated on merits. It was specifically held that the arising bagasse during the manufacture of sugars does not amount to manufacture, and the goods are not excisable. Consequently, the provision of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was deemed inapplicable. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the CBEC Circular dated 25.04.2016 were considered, leading to the conclusion that bagasse and pressmud arise during the manufacture of sugar, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case would equally apply to both products.4. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was correct and legal, devoid of any infirmity, and thus rejected the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, affirming the decision.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning behind the decision rendered in the case.