2022 (8) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....comes infructuous. 2. The Appeal, filed by the Appellant, is directed against the Order-in- Appeal  No.22/Pat/C.Ex/Appeal/2018-19 dated 07.05.2018. By the impugned order, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has, in appeal filed by the Revenue, set aside the order of the original authority stating as follows:-  "7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Adjudicating Authority has dropped the demand of duty for the period May, 2011 to 28.02.2015 in view of CESTAT final order No.75335/2016 dated 02.05.2016 which has been accepted by the Department. The said CESTAT Order has relied upon the case of UOI and Ors. vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)] decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 8. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....from the factory. Generally, when an explanation is inserted in any statute, it does not bring any new provision or changes in the existing provision. It only further clarifies the already existing provisions. Had the intention of legislation been to bring any new provision, a separate clause to this effect would have been inserted or the Rule would have been suitably amended. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Order of the Larger Bench of Hon'ble CESTAT (Principal Bench) in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Ltd versus CCE, Raipur [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)] wherein, in case of Notification no.:16/2009-CE (N.T.) dated 07.07.2009 has held that amendment to the Explanation 1 to Rule 2(i) of CCR is clarificatory in nature. The afores....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944." 3. The Appellants are manufacturing sugar and they are issued notice alleging that during the period May 2011 to September 2015, they were manufacturing dutiable and exempted goods (Bagasse and Bio Compost) by using common inputs. In respect of the exempted goods so produced they have not maintained separate accounts as per Rule 6(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Therefore, in terms of Rule 6(3)(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, they were required to pay an amount equivalent to @ 6% of the consideration received against these exempted goods amounting to Rs.1,83,39,094/-. 4. We have heard both the sides and considered the submissions made in Appeal and dur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [2019 (368) E.L.T. 276 (All.)] in para 33 has observed as follows:- "33. That the Circular dated 25-4-2016 interpreting Explanation 1 to Rule 6 has provided that "consequently, Bagasse, dross and skimmings of non-ferrous metal or any such by-product of waste, which are non-excisable goods and are cleared for consideration from the factory need to be treated like exempted goods for purpose of reversal of credit of input and input services, in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The circular therefore treating Bagasse to be a non-excisable goods, is clearly erroneous, and for this reason also the Circular dated 25-4-2016 is liable to be quashed with regard to Bagasse." 7. In the case of UOI & Others vs. Indian Sucro....