Loading...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 1210

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Notice (SCN) dt.22.05.2013 covering the period April, 2008 to March, 2013. He confirmed the demand of an amount of Rs.80,28,148/- being equal to the amount payable at 10% or 5% or 6%, as applicable from time to time, under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 [CCR] He also confirmed demand of appropriate interest and imposed penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 [The Act] 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned AR for the Revenue and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case, after filtering out unnecessary details, are that the Appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses on which it paid Central Excise Duty. In the process of manufacture, b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... & Andhra Pradesh High Court] He submits that various options under which the obligations can be fulfilled under Rule 6 of CCR are available to the assessee, who is free to choose any of the options. Revenue cannot choose one of the options (in this case Rule 6(3) of CCR) and demand recovery of an amount under that option. 8. The alternative submission of the learned Counsel is that Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Union of India Vs DSCL Sugar Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC)] that bagasse is only agricultural waste or residue and is not the result of any process of manufacture and therefore, it does not fall within the definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Act. Since it is not manufactured, Rule 6 of the CCR ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by this Court related to the period before 2008. In the year 2008 there was an amendment in Section 2(d) as well as in Section 2(f) of the Act which defines 'excisable goods' and 'manufacture' respectively. Section 2(d) with the said amendment reads as under : Section 2(d) - "excisable goods" means goods specified in [The First Schedule and the Second Schedule] to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt; Explanation - for the purposes of this clause, "goods" includes any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. 7. As per the aforesaid explanation, "go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 9. The Revenue sought to cover the case under sub-clause (ii) as per which the process which is satisfied in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notices of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 would amount to 'manufacture'. Here again, fiction is created by including those goods as amounting to manufacture in respect of which process is specified in the Section or Chapter notices of the First Schedule. 10. In the present case it could not be pointed out as to whether any process in respect of Bagasse has been specified either in the Section or in the Chapter notice. In the absence thereof this deeming provision cannot be attracted. Otherwise, it is not in dispute that Bagasse is only an agricultura....