2017 (11) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d claim filed on 13/06/2013 is time barred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that for the preceding period August, 2009 to March, 2010 the appellant was clearing Bagasse. The Department was of the view that since the appellant have not maintain separate account and inventory of the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final output- sugar and molasses and exempted final product- Bagasse, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004, they would be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the sale value of Bagasse. The demand for the said period was confirmed by the judicial Assistant Commissioner and the matter was sub-judice before the appellate authority. The said matter was finally settled by this Trib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....envat credit under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 upon clearance of Bagasse/Press Mud since April, 2010. This reversal was being made by them under protest, which is evident as they were contesting the issue before the appellate authority and also filed periodical refunds to this effect of the deposit/reversal of duty under protest. 4. After being successful before this Tribunal, as referred to hereinabove. The appellant filed refund claim on 13/06/2013 for the period April, 2010 to August, 2012. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 06.09.2013 was issued proposing to reject the claim on the ground of time bar under Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act. In reply to the SCN the appellant again reiterated that they had reversed the duty under prot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (f) of the Act and there being no Chapter note or Section note in the Central Excise Tariff declaration process in respect of Bagasse as amounting to manufacture. Thus, notwithstanding the amendment in 2008 in Section 2 (d), creating a fiction of deemed marketability, Bagasse is not excisable, as it does not pass through the test of manufacture. Accordingly, whatever amount the appellant-assessee have paid by way of reversal is in the nature of revenue deposit and there is no limitation attracted for refund of such revenue deposit. The learned counsel also relies on the ruling of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE Vs M/s Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. reported at 2014 (302) ELT 346 (All.) wherein also it have been held th....