Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1163

Whether Press Mud and Sludge arising during the course of manufacture of sugar and Molasses considered as excisable goods or not ?
CASE: M/s THE AMARAVATHI CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs CCE, COIMBATORE
 
CITATION: 2012-TIOL-937-CESTAT-MAD
ISSUE:-  Whether Press Mud and Sludge arising during the course of manufacture of sugar and Molasses considered as excisable goods or not ?
BRIEF FACTS: The brief facts of the case as recorded in the impugned Order-in-Appeal are that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit and carbon-dioxide. In the process of manufacture, press mud and sludge are produced which have been sold by the appellants for some value. The case of the Department is that since common inputs have been used leading to production of the aforementioned dutiable goods as also press mud and sludge on which no duty is payable, the appellants should pay 10% or 5% as applicable during the relevant period from April 2008 to September 2010 in terms of CENVAT Credit Rule 6(3) (i).
 
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:  The appellants states that 10% / 5% is payable only on the finished products manufactured by the appellants and not on by-products and waste like press mud and sludge. He cited the following decisions in support of his argument:-
 
(i) Rallies India Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.) = (2009-TIOL- 16-HC-MUM-CX)
(ii) Sterling Biotech Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem - (2010- T10L-103-CESTAT-MAD)
(iii) Vishal Pipes Vs. CCE, Noida - 2010 (255) ELT 532 = (2010-TIOL-1847-CESTAT-DEL)
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:  The respondent supports the impugned order. He also refers to the amendment made to the Central Excise Act on 10.5.2008 adding an Explanation to the definition of excisable goods under Section 2(d). According to him, press mud and sludge which have been sold had to be treated as excisable goods. His second argument is that unless duty is paid on by-products and waste, 10% / 5% as applicable is required to be paid by the appellants in terms of CENVAT Credit Rule 6(3) (i). He also relies on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India - 2009 (243) ELT 481 (All.) = (2009-TIOL-786-HC-ALL-CX)
REASONING OF JUDGEMENT:  The goods namely, press mud and sludge are classifiable respectively under Central Excise Tariff Heading 23032000 and 23033000. The Explanation to Section 2(d) is a deeming clause which renders any goods which are capable of being bought and sold for a consideration to be marketable. The cited decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindalco Industries (supra) is also to this effect. This deeming fiction became necessary to be created in the light of various judgments that merely because some goods are sold they cannot be held to be marketable and consequently they cannot be considered to be excisable as ‘excisability implied manufacture and marketability'. However, the main definition of 'excisable goods' under Section 2(d) is as under:-
"Excisable goods means goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt".
The definition itself implies that goods must be specified in the First Schedule or Second Schedule of the CETA, 1985, and the same should be subjected to a duty of excise. In the instant case, no doubt, the impugned items namely press mud and sludge are specified in the First Schedule to the CETA against Heading Nos. 23032000 and 23033000 in general terms but they are not subject to a duty of excise, as under the rate column the duty of excise is indicated as nil. Therefore, an important ingredient in the definition that the goods must be subject to a duty of excise is not satisfied in the present case. Hence, till such time, no duty is specified in the First Schedule of the CETA, press mud and sludge cannot be considered to be excisable goods.
The CENVAT Credit Rule 6(1) states that CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input used for manufacture of exempted goods. The expression 'exempted goods' has been defined for the purpose of CENVAT Credit Rules in Rule 2(d) to mean excisable goods which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon and includes goods which are chargeable to nil rate of duty. As per this definition, the impugned goods namely press mud and sludge would be covered under the definition "exempted goods", though the same cannot be treated as 'excisable goods" for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 above. The question raised in this case is whether in terms of Rule 6(3)(i), an amount equal to 10% / 5% would be payable on such goods. While considering this question. It is taken note of the fact that these goods are definitely in the nature of by-product and waste. In the cited decision in Rallies India (supra), the Bombay High Court, reversing the earlier decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, has held that when common inputs are used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted products, the liability to pay the amount of 8% as it was applicable at the relevant time would arise only for final products and not for waste. This decision of the Bombay High Court has been applied by this Bench in the case of M/ s. Sterling Biotech (supra). In the case of Vishal Pipes (supra), the Division Bench of the Tribunal has also referred to the Board's Circular No. 345/61-97-CX dated 23.10.1997 to the effect that there should be no denial of credit even if a part of an input is contained in scrap, waste, residue etc. notwithstanding the fact that the erstwhile Rule 57D was no longer in force.
Further, paragraph 3.7 in Chapter 5 of the CBEC's Central Excise Manuel (sic) referred to by the learned SDR states that CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of amounts of inputs contained in any of the waste, residue or by-product. It further states that the basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products.
DECISION:Appeal is allowed.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com