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 Excludes Bagasse from Rule 6: Precedents Support Appellant</h1> <h3>M/s. Kranti Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that bagasse/pressmud, as waste/byproduct, falls outside the scope of Rule 6 of the CENVAT ... CENVAT credit - exempt goods/by-product - Bagasse/Pressmud - period April, 2009 to October, 2010 - applicability of rule 6 of CCR - HELD THAT:- The issue of applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to bagasse/pressmud which emerges during the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, has been settled taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT] in favour of the assessee. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. Issues:- Applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to bagasse/pressmud emerging as a byproduct/waste during the manufacture of sugar and molasses.- Interpretation of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. regarding the applicability of Rule 6.- Consideration of amendments to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and their impact on the case.- Analysis of the definition of 'excisable goods' and 'manufacture' in light of the DSCL Sugar Ltd.'s case.- Impact of Circular N. 1027/15/2016-CX on the case and the decision-making process.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004:The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original regarding the clearance of exempted goods, specifically bagasse/pressmud, without reversing the required amount under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the issue of applying Rule 6 to bagasse/pressmud had been settled in their favor based on previous cases. The Tribunal found that the issue had indeed been resolved in favor of the assessee, citing judgments and interpretations that supported the exclusion of bagasse from Rule 6. The Tribunal concluded that bagasse, as a waste/byproduct, fell outside the scope of Rule 6, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.2. Interpretation of the DSCL Sugar Ltd. Judgment:The Tribunal referenced the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. to establish the applicability of Rule 6 to bagasse. By analyzing the amended definition of 'excisable goods' and 'manufacture' in light of the DSCL Sugar Ltd.'s case, the Tribunal determined that bagasse, being an agricultural waste and residue, did not qualify as excisable goods subject to Rule 6. This interpretation aligned with the Supreme Court's findings, leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order.3. Impact of Amendments to Rule 6 and Circular N. 1027/15/2016-CX:The Tribunal considered the amendments to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 and Circular N. 1027/15/2016-CX, which accepted the principle laid down in DSCL Limited's case. These factors further supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The acknowledgment of the precedent set by the Supreme Court and subsequent circular reinforced the Tribunal's conclusion regarding the exclusion of bagasse from the purview of Rule 6.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the thorough consideration of legal precedents, interpretations of relevant rules, and the application of established principles to reach a decision that favored the appellant in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
