Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 22 April, 2014

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi  110 066.



                                                                                                      Date of Hearing : 22.4.2014

             

Appeal No. E/608/2012-EX(SM)



[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 230/CE/Alld/2011 dated 8.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise,  Allahabad)

For Approval & signature :



Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)



1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
NO
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes


 M/s Saraya Sugar Mills Ltd.                                          Appellant



Vs.

CCE, Allahabad                                                        Respondent 

Appearance Shri Amar Nath Soni, Advocate - for the appellant Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. - for the respondent CORAM:Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51776/2014 Per Archana Wadhwa :

The short issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the appellant is liable to pay 10% of the value of the bagasse emerged as a waste product during the manufacture of molasses and sugar. Inasmuch as the appellants have not maintained separate Cenvat account.

2. The issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Indian Potash Ltd. and it stands held that inasmuch as bagasse is an inevitable waste arising during the course of manufacture and cannot be held to be a final marketable excisable product there is no requirement of payment of 10% amount in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3)(1). I also find that the Boards Circular No. 904/24/2009-CX dated 28.10.2009, stands struck down by Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Vs. Union of India  2014 (300) ELT 372 (Alld.), it stands held that the bagasse does not attract the provision of Rule 6(3)(1) of Cenvat credit Rules. By following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) RM 1