Case Law Details
M/s Shri Vitthalsai S.S.K. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)
Duty has been demanded from them under the provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that they have not paid the specified amount of sale value of Bagasse under Rule 6(3)(i) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that Bagasse is nothing but waste of the finished goods i.e. Sugar and Molasses and therefore no amount is required to be paid to the department. He cited a numbers of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of the Hon’ble High Court and also of this Tribunal in support of his arguments that no amount is to be paid and also that reversal of CENVAT credit under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not required in respect of waste or by-product or refuse generated during the process of manufacturing.
If any input is contained in waste by-product or goods the cenvat credit shall not be denied. If rule 6(3) is made applicable in these goods this clarification will stand redundant. If legislator has intention even to apply Rule 6(3) on waste or by-product, refuse then either this para should have been amended or omitted. Since this clarification is still in force the Cenvat credit either by way of Rule 6(3) or otherwise cannot be denied. As per my above discussion, I am of the considered view that in case of removal of waste or by-product Rule 6(3) has no application.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. NGP-II/APPL/1 7/2017-18 dated 08.03.2018 & NGP-II/APPL/21/201 7-18 dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Nagpur-II.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
