TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kground and they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of this order, we may notice the facts as recorded in Tax Appeal No.839 of 2012. Respondent is a manufacturer and is manufacturing various products such as, Dextrose/Anhydrus Dextrose/Liquid Glucose, Sorbitol Solution and plain and modified starch which are classified under different chapter headings under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacture of such goods, the respondent uses duty paid inputs and avails benefits of Cenvat credit as per the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is an admitted position that the respondent also clears certain other byproducts/ wastes, viz. Ridugent (Hydrol) and Corn Extractives ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puts as per rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent also contended that proportionately, the entire Cenvat credit availed on manufacturing of such byproducts/ waste was reversed along with interest. The adjudicating authority, however, passed the order in original dated 26.10.10, in which he passed a common order disposing of various show cause notices and confirmed the total duty demand of Rs.16,86,914/with interest and also imposed penalty of matching amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent, therefore, preferred appeal against the said order before the Commissioner, who by his order, dated 31.1.2011 dismissed the appeal, upon which the respondent approached the Customs Excise and Service ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he byproduct is not a commercial commodity with a market but is a mere item of waste, further taking into account that such subsidiary product was turned out regularly and continuously in the course of manufacturing business and was also sold regularly from time to time, held that an intention can be attributed to the manufacturer to manufacture and sell not merely the main item manufactured, but also subsidiary products. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Devan Parikh for the respondents opposed the appeals contending that the Tribunal committed no error. The entire situation is covered by the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd (supra) and of this Court in the case of Sterling Gelatin (supra). Counsel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be issued in wake of such changed statutory provisions, however, opined that when the issue was considered by Larger Bench of the Tribunal, there would, thereafter, be no further controversy possible. We may record that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rallis India Ltd. came to be reversed by the Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. (supra). Further, this Court had an occasion to consider such decision in very similar situation as we are concerned in the case of Sterling Gelatine (supra). It was a case wherein the manufacturer was manufacturing Gelatine and DiCalcium Phosphate as its main products. In the manufacturing process, certain byproducts/ waste were also manufactured. The Department contended tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... payment of excise duty. Thus, the credit availed at the first stage would stand recovered at the time of clearance of the exportable goods. In the facts of the present case, Cenvat Credit would have been availed in respect of the input Hydrochloric Acid. The entire Hydrochloric Acid having been used for the manufacture of excisable goods being Gelatin, the credit availed in respect of the inputs would be duly recovered at the time of clearance of the excisable goods being Gelatin. If, as contended on behalf of the revenue, the respondent would be liable to pay a percentage of the cost of the final exempted product being Di-Calcium Phosphate, the respondent would be required to pay duty in respect of the same input utilized by it twice over....