https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391695 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 Credit Rules, 2004. Citing precedents and interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that bagasse is not subject to Rule 6, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd., interpreting bagasse as agricultural waste exempt from Rule 6. The impact of Rule 6 amendments and Circular N. 1027/15/2016-CX further supported the exclusion of bagasse, emphasizing legal principles and precedents in favor of the appellant. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:00:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391695 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 Credit Rules, 2004. Citing precedents and interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that bagasse is not subject to Rule 6, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd., interpreting bagasse as agricultural waste exempt from Rule 6. The impact of Rule 6 amendments and Circular N. 1027/15/2016-CX further supported the exclusion of bagasse, emphasizing legal principles and precedents in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391695