TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. I find that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 entrust c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tute, 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 aforesaid finding of Hon'ble CESTAT was further affirmed by the Central Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....944." 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 during the course of argument. 5. In the case of UOI Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (322)....