C.C.E. & S.T. Rohtak vs M/S The Sonepat Co Op Sugar Mills

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 466-468/SVS/PKL/2013 dated: 29.08.2013 passed by CCE Rohtak]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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. Rohtak ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s The Sonepat Co Op Sugar Mills Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Appellant

Mr. V R Sethi, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing. 03.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53438-53440/2015

Per S. K. Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2013, wherein placing reliance on the judgment of Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs UOI reported in 2014 (300) ELT-372 (All), the appeal of the Revenue has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Rohtak.

2. The issue involved in the present case is with regard to reversal of cenvat credit on Bagasse & Press-mud generated during the course of manufacture of sugar & molasses in the Respondents factory. According to the Department, since the said goods are exempted from payment of duty, as per the requirement of Rule 6 of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, the respondent is required to pay the amount for clearance of such exempted goods from the factory.

3. I find that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. & Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held that Bagasse generated from crushing of Sugarcane is neither an exempted goods nor a manufactured goods, but it is a residue/waste; and that even though Bagasse is finding an entry in the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff, but it does not become a final product merely on existence of such entry. The Honble Court further held that Bagasse is nothing but a waste obtained during manufacture of Sugar, and as such cannot be regarded as final product exempted from duty for invoking provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, this Tribunal in the case of Shri Sidheshwar S S K Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2014 (309) ELT-495 (Tri. Mum), has held that Press-mud generated during course of manufacture of sugar being a waste product, cannot be considered as a final product as such and therefore, payment of amount as required under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will not have any application.

4. In view of the above settled position of law, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and as such, the appeals filed by the Revenue appellant are dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha