2017 (12) TMI 950

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ise<br>Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) Shri V. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri J.J. Sahu, AC(AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa. The issue involved in all the 17 (seventeen) appeals is identical, the same are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that reversal of cenvat credit has been sought invoking Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules in respect of Pressmud, Bagasse and Compost, Boiler Ash etc. cleared by them. He pointed out that all these products are waste and refuse of the process of manufacture of finished goods. Ld. Counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shivratna Udyog Ltd. & Ors. vide Order no.A/89....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....able. It was also held in the said judgment that liability under Rule 57CC arises only for final product and not for waste the Hon&#39;ble High Court also considered the provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The similar issue was considered in the case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that the Sulfuric Acid which is generated as a by product recovery of 8% under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 is not correct. In view of the above judgments the issue whether Rule 6(3) is applicable in case of removal of non-dutiable waste or by product is settled in favour of the assessee. As regard the submissions made by Ld. ARs that after insertion of explanation in Rule 6(1), even in case of non-excisab....