https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235001 Alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned adjudication was said to disregard binding legal principles and precedent, and the petitions were therefore maintainable. On the merits, bagasse was treated as waste arising in sugar manufacture, and electricity generated from it was not regarded as excisable goods or exempted goods for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As common inputs for dutiable and exempted final products were not shown to have been used in the manner required, reversal of CENVAT credit and the related duty demand could not be sustained. The impugned orders and show-cause notice were quashed. en-us Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Nov 2025 17:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235001 Alternative remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned adjudication was said to disregard binding legal principles and precedent, and the petitions were therefore maintainable. On the merits, bagasse was treated as waste arising in sugar manufacture, and electricity generated from it was not regarded as excisable goods or exempted goods for Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. As common inputs for dutiable and exempted final products were not shown to have been used in the manner required, reversal of CENVAT credit and the related duty demand could not be sustained. The impugned orders and show-cause notice were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235001