Tribunal Overturns 6% Payment Demand on Bagasse/Pressmud for Sugar Manufacturer; Relief Granted Under Rule 6 Explanation 1.

The Tribunal set aside the demand against the appellant, who was engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, regarding the payment of 6% of the value of bagasse/pressmud cleared. The Tribunal found that the demand was unsustainable due to the Explanation 1 to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, introduced in 2015, and recent legal decisions supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted consequential reliefs.

---

---

Issues:
The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the bagasse / pressmud cleared by them.

Details of the Judgment:

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of 'sugar' and 'molasses', availed CENVAT Credit on inputs and input services. The Department alleged a contravention of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, as the appellant did not maintain separate accounts for common input services used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted products. The Department demanded 6% of the value of exempted products for a specific period, leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent penalties confirmed by the original authority.

The appellant argued that a Supreme Court decision and subsequent amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules exempted bagasse/pressmud from being considered exempted goods. They referenced Circulars and High Court decisions to support their stance. The appellant contended that the demand should be set aside based on legal interpretations and precedents.

After considering the arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the demand could not be sustained. The Tribunal referred to the Explanation 1 to Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, introduced in 2015, and highlighted that recent decisions supported the appellant's position. Citing a recent decision by the Tribunal following a High Court ruling, the Tribunal set aside the demand, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the legal interpretations and precedents presented during the proceedings.

---