TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 06.09.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been set aside and the appeal has been allowed. 2. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below:- "6. I have carefully gone through the facts and records of the case as well as the submissions made by the appellant. I find that the issue involved in the present appeal has already been decided vide Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/ST/000/APPL-MRT/468/2018-19 dated 17.01.2019 in appellant's own case for the period from April 2016 to June 2017, wherein the original order was set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed holding that in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the CCR were not applicable in the case of electri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the department should be dismissed. 4. Learned authorised representative appearing for the department has, however, supported the impugned order and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi [2009 (240) E.L.T. 641 (SC.)]. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned authorised representative appearing for the department and the learned counsel for the respondent. 6. It is not a dispute that the issue involved in this appeal is same as was examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 17.01.2019 for the subsequent period from April, 2016 to June, 2017 as is clear from paragraph 2 of the order which is reproduced below:- "2. The appellant is a manufactu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clear from paragraph 2 of the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is reproduced below:- "2. The appellant was a manufacturer of Sugar, Molasses etc. falling under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). It was alleged by the officers of erstwhile Central Excise Department (the Department) that the appellant was also engaged in the generation/manufacture of 'Electricity', in his captive power generating unit, and the said electricity was being utilised in the manufacture of his final products as was also being sold to UPPCL and that the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of common inputs and input services used/consumed commonly in the manufacture of dutiable final products as well as in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The adjudicating authority has, however, confirmed the demand for the period from 01.03.2015 onwards holding that with effect from 01.03.2015 non-excisable goods were also "final products" and "exempted goods" within the meaning of clauses (d) & (h) of Rule 2 of CCR after the insertion of Explanation I & II to Rule 6 (1) of CCR vide Notification No.06/2015-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015, and the appellant had also admitted this fact by exercising the option for reversal of CEVAT Credit pertaining to electricity or power as per Rule 6(3A) of CCR." 9. Thus, when the issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of the respondent itself for the subsequent period, there is no informity in the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by t....