TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorities after introduction of GST regime vide Notification No.13/2017-C.E. (N.T) dated 09.06.2017 and as the appellants-assessee presently comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Pune-II CGST & Central Excise Commissionerate. As the revised name and address of the respondent Commissionerate correctly reflect the revised jurisdictional departmental authorities, under whose jurisdiction the appellants-assessee is functioning for the purpose of indirect taxes viz., Central Excise/GST, the miscellaneous application filed by the appellants is allowed. The prayer made by the appellants is considered and the revised name and address of the respondent is duly incorporated for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. Registry is directed to incorporate the following changed name and address of the respondent in the appeal records for the purpose office records. "Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) & Central Excise, Pune-II Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Sassoon Road, Opp. Wadia College Pune - 411 001.". 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants herein are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., sugar and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aurao Chavan SSK Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Aurangabad - (2023) 10 Centax 37 (Tri.-Bom) . Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and their appeal be allowed. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We find that the issue of applicability of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to 'bagasse' 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. 8.1 In Shree Narmada Khand Udyog (supra), the 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, therefor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Further, in the case of Bhaurao Chavan SSK Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held as follows: 6. .... The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of DSCL Sugar Ltd. (supra) while considering the amended definition of excisable goods and manufacture has laid down that that press mud is agricultural waste of sugarcane and the waste & residue of agricultural products during the process of manufacture of goods cannot be said to be result of any process. There is no manufacturing process involved in press mud's production. "Bagasse, press mud and boiler ash" are not 'goods' but merely a waste or by-product therefore Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules shall have no application in the such cases as they are bound to come into existence during the crushing of the sugarcane and are an unavoidable agricultural waste. 7. The amendment dated 1-3-2015 in Rule 6 ibid has been wrongly relied upon by the authorities below in confirming the demand. As per Rule 6 ibid as amended, non-excisable goods which are manufactured by the manufacturer in his factory will get covered under it and press mud/bagasse/boiler ash will not be covered under the said Rule despite being non-excisable goo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....product which is exempted from whole of duty or chargeable Nil rate of duty using Cenvat inputs. But here the manufacturer i.e. appellant here is not manufacturing bagasse or pressmud or boiler ash. These are by-products only and merely emerge as waste or residue while manufacturing sugar and molasses from sugar cane. None of the by-products falls within the definition of manufacture and in its absence nothing can be demanded from the appellant. It is not the case anywhere that after the amendment on 1-3-2015 byproducts/ waste/residue have been included in the definition of 'manufacture' and therefore in my view the provisions of amended Rule 6(3) or Rule 6(2) ibid has no application and resultantly the demand raised by the revenue cannot sustain." 5. In view of the above, the issue involved herein is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee. Now I will deal with the circular dated 25-4-2016 (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the authorities below in confirming the demand against the appellant. According to learned counsel the said circular has been treated as non est by subsequent circular dated 7-7-2022 a copy of which has al....