Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Baramati Agro Ltd vs Pune Iii on 6 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: E/224/2012
APPLICATION NO: E/Stay-325/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: PIII/RS/326/2011 dated 31/10/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - III), Pune.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
:
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
:
Yes
3.
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
:
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
:
Yes
Baramati Agro Ltd.
Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise
Pune III
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. Narayanan, Advocate for the appellant Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 06/05/2014 Date of decision: 06/05/2014 ORDER NO: ____________________________ Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan:
The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Appeal No: PIII/RS/326/2011 dated 31/10/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals - III), Pune.
2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has upheld the duty demand of ` 4,10,927/- on M/s. Baramati Agro Ltd. in respect of bagasse and press-mud cleared by them during the period on 10/05/2008 to 31/08/2010 in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 along with interest and also imposing an equivalent amount of penalty. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is already covered by a large number of decisions of this Tribunal and the decision of the honble Allahabad High Court in Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India 2013-TIOL-557-ALL-CX wherein it has been held that bagasse which arise in the course of manufacture of sugar is only waste product which cannot be considered as a final product and, therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would not arise. Accordingly, he pleads for allowing the appeal.
4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, fairly concedes that the issue is already settled against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the various decisions of this Tribunal.
5. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and also noting that the issue has already been settled, we take up the appeal itself for consideration and disposal, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and with the consent of both the sides.
6. We note that the honble Allahabad High Court in Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) had considered the matter at length and had held that bagasse and press mud are waste products arising during the course of manufacture of sugar, which cannot be considered as excisable goods or final products and, therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not arise at all. Following the said decision, this Tribunal also, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II vs. DY Patil SSK Ltd. & Ors. 2014-TIOL-475-CESTAT-MUM had set aside the demands on such waste products arising during the course of manufacture of sugar. The ratio of these decisions applies squarely to the facts of the present case.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) */as 4