TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise Tariff Act. 1985. For the purpose payment of Central Excise duty on final products and for compliance with Central Excise Statute, the appellants are duly registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities holding registration No. AAAAS2034BXM001. The appellants avail CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on inputs, capital goods and of service tax paid on input services for utilizing the same towards payment of central excise duty on final products. 2.3 In the manufacturing process of the aforesaid final products, the raw material sugar cane is crushed which results into four types of products viz., (i) Sugar Juice (ii) Molasses (iii) Bagasse and (iv) Press Mud. Sugarcane juice and molasses are subjected to further processing to obtain final products viz., sugar and other distillery products. Bagasse is waste generated during the above manufacturing activity. The impurities in the form of sludge which are taken out of the sugarcane juice during the course of filtration/ purification are referred to as 'press-mud'. The impurities which are taken out while processing the molasses is referred as 'spent wash'. Press mud so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India Privte Limited & others Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Exicse, Pune-I - 2026 (4) TMI 860 -CSTAT MUMBAI; (iv) Indreshwar Sugar Mills Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals), Pune-II - 2026 (7) TMI 1614 -CSTAT MUMBAI; Hence, they pleaded that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellants. 4. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. We have also examined the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. 6. The issue involved in this appeal is to examine whether the appellant is required to pay the CENVAT demand in respect of clearance of electricity outside their factory; and whether confirmation of adjudged demands in the impugned order is legally sustainable. 7. Both sides agree that the issue arising out of the present dispute have already been decided in favour of the appellants in a number of cases by the Tribunal. We note that in all the decisions which have been relied upon by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not be taken for both type of activities undertaken by them. Since the appellant did not maintain any separate records, bifurcating usage of inputs and input services for manufacture of excisable goods and for generation of electricity, the Department had interpreted that provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should be applicable and thus, the appellants are liable to pay 6% of the value of electricity sold to the outside parties. The show-cause notices issued in this regard were adjudicated by the original authorities vide various Orders-in-Original, wherein the proposals made in the SCNs were confirmed. On appeal against those adjudication orders, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 03.08.2017 has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands and rejected the appeals filed by the appellants. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 03.08.2017, the appellants have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 4. We find that an identical dispute in the case of M/s Vaidyanath SSK Ltd. and others came up for hearing before the Commissioner of GST, Aurangabad and vide Order-in-Original No. 25-44/CEX/COMMR/MKR/ 2021-22 dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s upheld confirmation of the adjudged demands on the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants." 5. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate, for a decision contrary to the decided case referred supra. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed in favour of the appellants." 8.2 We further find in the case of DSCL Sugar Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held generation of bagasse as waste would not be subjected to central excise duty. The relevant paragraphs of the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are as quoted below: "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 agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Se....