TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany Secretary For the Appellants Mr. K. T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner (AR), Mr. Kanipakam Murali, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondents ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed these six appeals against various impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellants. Since the issue involved in all the six appeals is identical, therefore, all the six appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of appeal No. E/20434/2018 are taken. 2.1 Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of sugar and molasses on payment of Central Excise duty falling under Chapter 17 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the statutory provision as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedents decided by the Tribunal and the High Court on this very issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has relied upon the Explanation-I inserted in Rule 6(1) wherein it is provided that electricity generated by the appellant fall under the term 'non-excisable' goods and hence, the amended provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 are applicable to electricity sold by the appellant w.e.f 1.3.2015 and consequently, the appellants were liable to pay an amount equal to 6% of the value of electricity sold by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of demand for an amount of 6% of value of electricity is not tenable in law. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and the Courts. He relied upon the following decisions: * Jakarya Sugars Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (5) TMI 1665 (Tri.-Mum.) * Gularia Chini Mills vs. UOI: 2014 (34) STR 175 (HC-All.) 4.1 He further submitted that in the case of Gularia Chini Mills cited supra, the Department itself has clearly admitted before the High Court that except the bagasse no other input or input service is used for generation of electricity and the said decision of Gularia Chini Mills has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DSCL Sugars Ltd. reported in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE vs. Maa Mangala Ispat Pvt. Ltd.: 2017 (49) STR 593. * CCE vs. Goyal Proteins Ltd.: 2015 (325) ELT 165 * Narmada Gelatins Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (233) ELT 332 4.3 Further, he submits that the department cannot force the option to pay 6% amount when the assessee has the option to reverse the proportionate credit. For this, he relied upon the following decisions: * Cranes & Structural Engineers vs. CCE: 2017 (347) ELT 112 * Aster Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2016 (43) STR 411 * Swaraj Automotive vs. CCE: 2018 (9) TMI 982 * Furnace & Foundry Equipment Co. vs. CCE: 2018 (2) TMI 1011 * Rajdeep Plastics Containers (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (11) TMI 338 4.4 The learned coun....