https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408935 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand notice for recovery of an amount related to the discharge of 10% or 5% of the price of bagasse generated during sugar manufacture. The Tribunal held that as bagasse was deemed agricultural waste without undergoing a specific process, it did not qualify as excisable goods under the Act. Therefore, Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, did not apply, and there was no legal basis for imposing excise duty on bagasse. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. en-us Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:12:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408935 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand notice for recovery of an amount related to the discharge of 10% or 5% of the price of bagasse generated during sugar manufacture. The Tribunal held that as bagasse was deemed agricultural waste without undergoing a specific process, it did not qualify as excisable goods under the Act. Therefore, Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, did not apply, and there was no legal basis for imposing excise duty on bagasse. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408935