TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rastructure Limited, having their factory at Devhada, Tashil Mohadi, District Bhandara and Registered office at 5thFloor, Gupta Tower, Civil Lines, Nagpur (herein after, referred to as "the appellants", for short) assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/501-502/18-19 dated 13.02.2019 (herein after, referred to as "the first impugned order") and Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/APPL/053/19-20 dated 28.06.2019 (herein after, referred to as "the second impugned order", and both together referred to as "impugned orders") passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, Nagpur. 2.1 Brief facts of the case, leading to these appeals, are summarized herein below: 2.2 The appellants herein are engaged inter alia, in ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....manure, which are sold in bags of 40 to 50 kgs. without payment of any central excise duty, on the understanding that these are waste products and are not chargeable to central excise duty. As the appellants did not maintain separate accounts of common inputs and input services towards dutiable final products and exempted/non dutiable final products such as 'organic waste', as envisaged in Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 2004, the department had interpreted that the appellants are required to reverse the CENVAT credit for an amount attributable to 6% of the value of exempted goods cleared by them under Rule 6(3)(i) of the Rules of 2004. 2.4 Accordingly, the department had initiated show cause proceedings for recovery of central excise duty on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the issue has been decided in their favour in the following cases: (i) Perti Power Sugar Limited Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur - Final Order No. A/85817/2026 dated 13.05.2026; (ii) Balrampur Chini Mills Limited Vs. Union of India - 2014 (300) E.L.T. 372 (All.); (iii) Union of India Vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.); (iv) Rallis India Limited Vs. Union of India - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 301 (Bom.) (v) Bhaurao Chavan SSK Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Aurangabad - (2023) 10 Centax 37 (Tri. - Bom.). Hence, they pleaded that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and consequently no penalty is imposable on the appellants. 4. Learned A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ablished that the product in question is a by-product then it is settled that in respect of by-product demand under Rule 6 ibid will not sustain. 8.1 The findings of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Purti Power Sugar Ltd. (supra), involving identical set of facts are as follows: "4. We find that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra, in view of the Final Order No. A/85667/2019 dated 03.04.2019 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of the appellants themselves. While allowing the appeal in favour of the appellants, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Limited Vs. Union of India - 2009 (23....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty." 8. In the present case organic manure emerges by physical mixing out of two byproducts viz. press mud and spent wash, hence, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case." 5. In view of the forgoing discussions, we do not find any merits in the impugned order, insofar as it has upheld confirmation of the adjudged demand on the appellants. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants." 8.2 We further find that the Tribunal has held in the case of Bhaurao....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 also been placed on record. I have gone through the same and it is clear that the said circular i.e. circular dated 25.4.2016 has been rescinded by another circular being No.1084/05/2022-CX, dated 7.7.2022 issued by Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs (CBIC) in view of the decision of the Hon'ble ....