Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Chengalvarayan Co-Operative Sugar ... on 15 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/63/2008
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.185/2007 (P) dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
Appellant
Versus
Chengalvarayan Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR Shri J.Shankarraman, Advocate For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 15.9.2009 Date of decision : 15.9.2009 Final Order No.____________ The issue in dispute in the present appeal, namely, as to whether the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of sugar and molasses and taking credit of specified duty on inputs used in the manufacture of their final products, are liable to pay an amount equal to 10% of the selling price of exempted products, namely, Press Mud and Vermi-compost in terms of Rule 6 (3) (b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004.
2. On hearing both sides, I note that the issue stands settled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. [2004 (176) ELT 819] against which the Revenue had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the apex court as seen from 2005 (189) ELT A62 (SC). Further, in the case of the same assessees, the Tribunal has held in Final Order No.1033/07 dt. 20.8.07 that provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) are not attracted unless the goods involved are final products while Press Mud and Vermi-compost are waste products and not final products.
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, accordingly, uphold the same and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 3