Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kumbhi Kasari Ssk Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No.E/918/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.PII/RKS/97 to 100/2012 dated 27/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No 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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Kumbhi Kasari SSK Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Kolhapur Appearance: None for appellant Shri. H.M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) , for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 24/05/2016 Date of Decision : 24/05/2016 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. When this appeal was called out, none appeared on behalf of the appellant.
2. On perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding payment of 5% or 10% of the value of exempted goods, i.e., bagasse and pressmud cleared by the appellant. It is the case of the revenue that the appellant having availed Cenvat Credit on various inputs and input services needs to reverse an amount of 5% or 10% as the case may be against the clearances of bagasse and pressmud as they are not discharging excise duty on the said goods. In my view, the issue is no more res integra as the bagasse and pressmud arising during the course of manufacturing of sugar. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs DSCL Sugar Ltd., as reported in 2015 (322) ELT 769 (SC) has held that bagasse and pressmud is a non-excisable products. In my view, as the bagasse and pressmud are non-excisable, the question of reversing 5% or 10% of the value of goods does not arise as the common inputs not used in the manufacturing of waste.
3. Since the issue is squarely by the decision of the Apex Court, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) pj 1 3