TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the sugar plant. The bagasse is not a manufactured product. It is merely an agricultural waste as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.). That the electricity generated by the Appellant is captively used partly in the manufacture of excisable products and surplus quantity of the electricity is sold by the Appellant to UP Power Corporation Ltd. [UPPCL] against sale consideration without payment of excise duty for the reason that the electricity falling under CESTH 2716.00.00 is non-excisable goods. That the Appellant is using inputs such as lubricating oils, greases, chemicals etc. in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. sugar and molasses. Since electricity produced in the factory was partly wheeled out to UPPCL, the Appellant was under erroneous belief that they were required to reverse CENVAT credit in proportion to the electricity units wheeled out of the factory under Rule 6(3A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Accordingly, the Appellant reversed CENVAT credit of Rs.39,78,832/- during the F.Y. 2009-10 to 2013-14. The Appellant intimated the reversal amounts to the Supdt.(Prev), Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of duty on 04.03.2016 which was paid during the period Nov, 2009 to Feb, 2014 voluntarily. The refund claim is barred by limitation of one year from the relevant date as provided in section 11B of CEA, 1944. 4. That the Appellant contested the SCN. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the entire refund claim on the following grounds:- (a) No direction or order was passed by the High Court so as to grant refund of amount reversed by the Appellant during the period Nov, 2009 to Feb, 2014. (b) Even if it is accepted that the refund arose as a natural consequence out of order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court dated 18.08.2015, in that case also the refund is barred by limitation in as much as the duty / amount reversed was not within last one year preceding the refund claim. By treating the day of payment / reversal of credit as relevant date, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the refund claim on the grounds of limitation. 5. That on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the OIO by holding that the amount of CENVAT credit reversed by the Appellant from time to time represents the credit not admissible to them for the reason that part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds viz. sugar and molasses produced by the Appellant. The input bagasse arising as waste product out of crushing process is used as fuel in the generation of steam and power. Since bagasse is an agricultural waste as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.), the same does not suffer any excise duty and therefore the question of availing CENVAT credit in respect of bagasse used in the boiler does not arise. On this reasoning, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the demand raised by the Department on sale of electricity to UPPCL. The relevant para 13 from the judgment is reproduced below:- "13. Cenvat Credit in respect of electricity was denied only on the premise that Bagasse attracts excise duty and consequently Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rule is applicable. Since this action of the appellant is found to be erroneous, all these appeals of the Revenue also stand dismissed." 7. In the light of the above ruling, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the amount reversed by the Appellant from time to time was not admissible to them since part of the electricity was not used by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t have used bagasse which itself was non-dutiable nor manufactured product, the provisions of Rule 6(3) calling for reversal of CENVAT credit were not applicable. Whatever amount of CENVAT credit reversed by the Appellant, the same is in the nature of revenue deposit and the limitation period of Section 11B does not apply to refund of revenue deposit. That w.r.t. reversal of duty under the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004, in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of bagasse which is non-dutiable and non-manufactured product, the Tribunal, in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Lucknow reported in 2018 (363) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-All.) has held that since bagasse is not a dutiable item and not a manufactured item, as held by the Supreme Court, there was no question of duty under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004. In such a case, the amount reversed by the Assessee under Rule 6(3) is in the nature of revenue deposit on which the refund provisions of Section 11B are not applicable. The Appellant rely upon this ruling to plead that the entire credit of Rs.39,78,832/- reversed by them erroneously under Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 was in the nature of revenue deposit and the s....