M/S. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 136-137-CE/LKO/2010 dated 15/7/2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Lucknow]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr 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?

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Lucknow

Appearance:

Shri P K Mittal, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 19. 6.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 51970-51971 /2015 SM

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeals against the impugned orders.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of sugar and molasses. During the course of manufacture of sugar, sugarcane is crushed and leftover waste is called Bagasse. This Bagasse is burned in the boiler and the steam is generated. Out of the steam (electric energy) which is used for operation of manufacturing unit producing sugar and molasses and a part of the electricity, so generated is sold to M/s U P Power Corporation Ltd. The show cause notices were issued to the appellant alleging that appellant is liable to pay 10% of the value of electrical energy produced in terms of Rule 6(3)of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that electrical energy is exciseable and is exempted goods within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, and hence provisions of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are attracted. As appellant is not maintaining separate accounts of Bagasse which is being used for producing sugar and molasses as well as electrical energy, therefore, the applicant is required to pay 10% of the value of electrical energy so produced. The show cause notices were adjudicated and demand as per show cause notice was confirmed by both the lower authorities. Aggrieved from the said orders, appellants is before me.

3. Hard the parties

4. In a similar set of facts, in appellants own case, vide Final order No. 51791/2015- Ex(SM) dated 08/06/2015, this Tribunal has held that the amount already reversed by the appellant attributable to the generation to electrical energy, is sufficient in compliance to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the appellant is not required to pay 10% of the value of electrical energy which is sold to UP Power Corporation limited. In these circumstances, I hold that the amount of reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs / input services attributable to producing the electrical energy is sufficient in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned orders, the same are set aside. Consequently, the appeals are allowed.

( Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2