C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula vs M/S. Kaithal Co-Operative Sugar Mills ...
- CitationAppeal No. E/57216/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The respondent manufacturer is not liable to pay duty at 5% or 10% of the value of bagasse or other waste emerging in the course of manufacturing sugar and molasses, that question having been settled by the Tribunal's earlier decision in Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. v. CCE Allahabad, which the court follows as binding on the point.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 17/SVS/PKL/2012 dated 16.01.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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?
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. & S.T. Panchkula .Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Kaithal Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Appellants
Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 13.05.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51616/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
The short issue involved is that whether the respondent is required to pay value of 5% / 10% of the baggase / waste emerges during the course of manufacturing sugar and molasses or not.
2. The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Allahabad-2014 (302) ELT 246 (Tri-Del) wherein it has been held that appellant is not required to pay 5% / 10% of the value of baggase / waste emerging during the course of manufacturing sugar and molasses.
3. In the light of decision of Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. I hold that respondent is not required to pay 5% / 10 % of the value of baggase / emerged during the impugned period. Therefore I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld.
4. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/57216/2013-EX(SM)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free