2019 (12) TMI 1125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... PII/RKS/112 to 130/2012 dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune. Since these appeals involve common issues, the same are taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case (Appeal No. E/1089/2012) are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 1701 and 1703 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Alleging that during the period November, 2009 to June, 2010, the appellant had cleared the exempted goods namely, Bagasse/Pressmud emerged as a byproduct/ waste, without reversing the amount required under Rule 6(3)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, show-cause notice was issued to them on 13.07.2011 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 42....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2004 to bagasse/pressmud which emerges during the course of manufacture of sugar and molasses, has been settled taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) in favour of the assessee in the aforesaid cases. In Shree Narmada Khand Udyog (supra), this Tribunal observed as follows: - "5. I find that the department has dropped the demand on the byproduct "Bagasse" for the period prior to 01.03.2015. However, on insertion of explanation I to Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 by virtue of Notification No. 6/2015-CE(NT) dt. 1.3.2015 a view was taken by the department that bagasse being not an excisable goods and cleared from the factory, against consideration, ther....