Cce, Lucknow vs Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.03 to 05-CEX/06 dated 31.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Customs), Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Lucknow]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE 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?

__________________________________________________

CCE, Lucknow Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Neoli Sugar Factory

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri.R.K.Grover, DR

Present for the Respondent: Shri.Raj Kumar, FCA

Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08/04/2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 51183-51185/2015

PER: RAKESH KUMAR

Since a common issue is involved in these appeals, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The respondent are sugar mills. In the course of manufacture of sugar, bagasse arises during crushing of the sugar cane, which was being cleared without payment of duty. The Department was of the view that in respect of clearances of bagasse, the appellant would be required to pay an amount equal to 8% of the sale value of the goods under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/ 2002 Rule 57 CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they have availed input duty cenvat credit and they have not maintained separate account and inventory of the inputs meant for dutiable final product and exempted final products. In all these cases the Original adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand under Rule 57-CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944/ Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002. However, on appeals being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) in all the three appeals set aside the Assistant Commissioners order. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) these appeals have been filed by the Revenue.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Both the sides agree that the issue involved in this case stands decided in the respondents favour by the judgment of Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (300) ELT 372 (All.) wherein the Honble High Court after considering the amendment to section 2 (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Finance Bill 2008 by which the definition of excisable goods had been amended, has held that the bagasse was not excisable and accordingly no amount under Rule 6 (3) would be payable. In view of this judgment of Allahabad High Court, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeals. The same are dismissed.

[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].

(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0

2