https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219089 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that bagasse and press mud should not be considered excisable goods under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The demand by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for not maintaining separate accounts for these items was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents and a Board Circular, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal and stay petition in favor of the appellant. The decision clarified the treatment of bagasse and press mud as exempted excisable goods, emphasizing that the amount under Rule 6(3) was not recoverable for these products. en-us Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2013 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219089 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that bagasse and press mud should not be considered excisable goods under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The demand by the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for not maintaining separate accounts for these items was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents and a Board Circular, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal and stay petition in favor of the appellant. The decision clarified the treatment of bagasse and press mud as exempted excisable goods, emphasizing that the amount under Rule 6(3) was not recoverable for these products. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219089