You are on page 1of 9

Page 1 of 9

LawCrux Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
Printing in TimeTrim

2012(05)LCX0280
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajiv Sharma and Vinay Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.
Versus
Union of India
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11791 (M/B) of 2010 with Writ Petition Nos. 11774 (M/B), 1129 (M/B),
3461 (M/B), 3076 (M/B), 3069 (M/B) & 1896 (M/B) of 2011,1815 (M/B), 1810 (M/B), 1804 (M/B),
1803 (M/B) & 1817 (M/B) of 2012,5354 (M/B) & 11168 (M/B) of 2011,1828 (M/B),1137 (M/B) &
1234 (M/B) of 2012, 2560 (M/B) of 2011, 2541 (M/B) of 2010 and 3031 (M/B) of 2012, decided on 185-2012
Summary of case:$
The appellant is engaged in manufacture of sugar during manufacturing of Sugar, Baggasse emerged as
a product (wastage) which attract nil rate of duty. CBEC issued circular dated 28/10/2009 and Chief
Commissioner of central excise (UP) circular dated 3/10/2009. To recover duty at the rate of 5% if the
separate records are not maintained by the assessee in the course of manufacturing of dutiable as well as
exempted goods/services. The baggasse is not a byproduct manufactured by the sugar mill, it is only
wastage although having some economic value but it is coming into existence incidentally. The purpose
of rule 6 of CENVAT Rules, 2004 is not to charge tax on these types of goods. The circulars issued by
revenue authorities are quashed. Appeal allowed.
>

Cases Quoted Commissioner v. Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. - Civil Appeal No. 2791 of 2005,
decided on 21-7-2010 by Supreme Court - Relied on [Paras 6,11,24, 25,29,30]
Commissioner v. Gas Authority of India Ltd. - 2008 (232) ELT 0007 (S.C.) - Relied on [Para 28]
Commissioner v. Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. - Supreme Court decision
dated 20-2-2004 - Relied on [Para 24]
Commissioner v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills - Relied on [Para 23]
Commissioner v. Shakumbhari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. - 2005(08)LCX0291 Eq 2005 (189) ELT
A062 (S.C)
- Relied on [Para 22]
Commissioner v. Shakumbhari Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd.

file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint.htm

30-09-2016

Farooqui. S/Shri l. Customs Central Excise and Service Tax.30.14. ASGI and Rajesh Singh Chau-han. issued by the Joint Commissioner. assisted by Sri Sudeep Kumar and Sri Piyush Agarwal. 5. In all these writ petitions.P. 1816 of 2012 (M/B). 3923 (M/B) of 2011 and 1262 of 2012 (M/B). Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal.K. State Sugar Corporation .1802 of 2012 (M/B). Sri A. 11791 (MB) of 2010 are given hereunder :- file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. Farooqui. for the Respondent [Order]. learned Counsel for the Central Board of Excise & Customs. Assistant Solicitor General of India and Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan. 3. it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the parties that since the question involved in the above captioned writ petitions is different from the question involved in Writ Petition Nos. the petitioners pray for quashing the Circular dated 28-10-2009..2003(09)LCX0032 Eq 2004 (176) ELT 0819 (Tribunal) .htm 30-09-2016 .E. decided on 21-7-2010.B. 4477 of 2011 (M/B).) . v.29. 6. Senior Advocate assisted by Sudeep Kumar and Piyush Agarwal. Circular dated 28-10-2009 [Paras 5.Page 2 of 9 . Senior Advocate. in Civil Appeal No. U. 1069 (M/B) of 2012. Chief Commissioner is present and he states that the Circular dated 3-10-2009 was issued by his predecessor and he retired on attaining the age of superannua-tion. as such.5. the facts of Writ Petition No. issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. 1816 of 2012 (M/B). & C. 4. the Circular dated 3-10-2009.11. as pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd.P. In compliance of the order dated 7-5-2012. 4477 of 2011 (M/B). 1069 (M/B) of 2012. Union of India .2008(12)LCX0006 Eq 2009 (233) ELT 0301 (Bom. 2791 of 2005. appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri I.H. issued by the Central Excise.30. Since in all the aforesaid writ petitions.32] Chief Commissioner of Central Excise. Misra. Accordingly. U.H. it being a waste and not a manufactured product. Registry is directed to de-link Writ Petition Nos. Counsel. At the outset. the question involved is that whether Bagasse can be subjected to any duty under the Central Excise Act. for the Petitioner.Relied on [Para 27] Departmental Clarification QuotedC. 3923 (M/B) of 2011 and 1262 of 2012 (M/B) and list it separately. Lucknow Circular dated 3-10-2009 [Paras 1. 1802 of 2012 (M/B). 2.32] Advocated By S/Shri Bharat ]i Agarwal.Referred [Para 22] Commissioner v. the same be de-linked from the instant bunch of writ petitions.Relied on [Para 23] Rallis India Ltd. Lucknow and demand notice dated 24/27-9-2010.

Bagasse. But the Chief Commissioner. The petitioner transports about 65% cane from cane centres and service tax is being paid by the petitioner on the transportation of the cane and for which the Cenvat credit is taken. The petitioner is availing credit of Central Excise Duty paid on inputs and capital goods as provided under Cenvat Credit Rules. which is being manufactured. it is necessary for the manufacturer to maintain separate accounts. 2008. sugar. Central Excise has erred in law in holding that because of the explanation added to Section 2(d) with effect from 13th May. falls under sub-heading No. Central Excise dated 310-2009 that bagasse is not a manufactured final product in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 'bagasse' and other waste of sugar manufacture' with NIL rate of duty. manufacture is referred to both dutiable/excisable goods and exempted goods. (ii) and manufactures such final products which are chargeable to duty and (iii) also manufactures such final products which are exempted goods. Admittedly. which are the final products. which is neither a manufactured product nor is a final product of the sugar industry. 8. The sugar.Page 3 of 9 7. sugarcane is crushed. 2002. so generated is mainly used as fuel in the factory for manufacture of final products and surplus. molasses and industrial alcohol is paid by the petitioners on their clearances from the factory. 11. The principal raw material of the petitioners' final product. Hence. 1701 of 1990 of First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act. Only then. 2004 for further payment of Central Excise Duty on final products. 1985 (5 of 1986) as 'Beet-Pulp'. viz. This fact has been admitted even in the circular of the Chief Commissioner. The 'bagasse' is classified under sub-heading 2303 20 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act.. During the course of manufacture of sugar. According to him. Sugar and Molasses. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules is not applicable in the present case. as per procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Rules. Service tax is also paid on repair and maintenance to contractors and also to the various other services for which the credit is taken by the petitioner. molasses (Sheera) emerges as a by-product. In the process of manufacture of sugar. the judgment of the Supreme Court stands nullified. Rule 6(1) provides that Cenvat credit shall not allow on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Since the Circular of Board and that of Chief Commissioner dated 2-1-2010 is binding upon the file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. namely. which is purely an agricultural product. 9. namely. its juice is extracted and 'Bagasse' emerges as residue/waste of the sug-arcane. 1985.htm 30-09-2016 . For applicability of Rule 6(2). is transferred to the sister concerns of the petitioner. The waste of sugarcane. 10. which attracts specific rate of duty under the Tariff Heading 1703 of 1990 of the above Act. if any. the following ingredients must exist :(i) where a manufacturer avails Cenvat credit on any input [as defined in Section 2(k)]. The petitioner is using lubricant and grease to run the mills for crushing cane and extraction of juice in the process of which 'Bagasse' emerges as residue/waste after extracting juice from sugarcane. 12. the Central Excise Duty on sugar. is sugarcane.

as a burning agent in boilers and even for ordinary consumption as an energy input. Elaborating his arguments. 10-5-2008.e. it cannot be said that 'bagasse' is a refuge or dirt or porridge and is not a manufactured product. then in terms of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. Shakumbhari Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd.e. the petitioner has informed the jurisdictional Central Excise Authority that even though Rule 6 is not applicable and the petitioner is not liable for payment of any Central Excise duty or reversal of 5% of the amount of bagasse sold.. i. Sugarcane. file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. a distinct reside bye-product.e. still the petitioner has deposited the amount of duty under protest. the commodity. Therefore. the Apex Body. 2004. in the year 2005-06. 1944. Mr. who prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. While granting interim order on 2-12-2010. input services and capital goods used in relation to the manufacture of their final products in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. 2008. Department of Revenue. The bagasse is also being used in the manufacture of paper and paperboard and for that reason. The bagasse has durability. 2303 20 00 of the First Schedule in the Central Excise Tariff Act. exchangeability and economic value.f. with an idea to enhance the consumption of renewable energy input as 'bagasse' in the manufacturer of paper and paper-board. It is submitted that Balrampur Chini Mills who is having Central Excise Registration and is engaged in the manufacture of V. However. It is capable of being sold for a consideration and is actually being bought and sold in the market as Energy input. In case. During the manufacture of sugar from the principal input. 2004. called 'bagasse' emerges which has been placed under Chapter subheading No. the proportionate credit would be reversed or 5% amount would be paid. Molasses and Denatured Absolute Alcohol falling under First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Power has also been filed by Sri Alok Kumar Tripathi on behalf of the Union of India. a coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order :- "Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan. 14. Rajesh Singh Chauhan. decided on 21-7-2010. consequent upon the amendment brought by the Government in the newly enacted and enlarged Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. bagasse is not a manufactured product. 1985 and have been availing credit of duty paid on the inputs.f. Sugar.e. vide the Finance Bill. 15.P.htm 30-09-2016 . Mr. Chauhan has further submitted that in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.Page 4 of 9 Assessing Authority. learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the writ petitions are not maintainable against the show cause notices. Therefore. 10-5-2008) an 'exempted excisable goods' and hence the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules would apply. 2791 of 2005. Central Board of Excise and Customs issued Circular dated 28-10-2009 clarifying that 'bagasse' and other like materials would be chargeable to payment of Central Excise Duty. the rate of duty in respect of such products is 'nil' in the Tariff or they are exempted from the duty in terms of any exemption notification and if Cenvat credit has been taken on the inputs which are used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods and no separate accounts have been maintained in this regard. as pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of the petitioners themselves in Civil Appeal No. 13. 1985 attracting 'Nill' rate of Central Excise Duty. 'bagasse' got covered under the definition of excisable goods w. the bagasse is now (w. The issue involved in the present case is whether Bagasse can be subjected to any duty under the Central Excise Act. In view of the amendment. it being a waste and not a manufactured product. dated 7-12-2008. an exemption has been granted by the Government vide Notification No. i. 4/2006.

learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid rule can attract only when the goods are manufactured which are dutiable and exempted. and Others. appearing for the respondents. Their Lordships. where an explanation was added. requiring the authorities to take action under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. in view of the circulars. Central Excise and Service Tax. the assessee is required to reverse the proportionate credit or pay 5% amount. referred to above. whatever points are being raised by the petitioner. the High Court would have been justified in rejecting such an objection and the impugned circular could not have been challenged before the departmental authorities as they would have felt bound by it'. saying that "goods" include anv article. issued by the Board and the Chief Commissioner respectively. therefore. which is also a waste and it does not involve any manufacturing activity. the same can be raised there. Interpreting Rule 6 and in particular sub-rule (2). material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. the plea of the petitioner cannot be considered by the assessing authority. wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the Circular issued by the Commissioner. requiring it to show cause as to why the amount deposited be not appropriated and why the penalty be not imposed upon it. the Chief Commissioner. but the instant case is not a case which can be said to be covered under the said rules. Such bagasse is nothing but a waste obtained during the manufacture of sugar and it cannot be regarded as a final product. says that it is a show cause notice alone. Customs.C). observed that 'in the facts of the case. The civil appeal filed by the Department against the said judgment was thus dismissed by the Supreme Court. 2004. and Others (2003) 11 SCC 129 = 2003(10)LCX0320 Eq 2003 (158) ELT 0003 (S. and they are final products. Ltd. the Chief Commissioner. provisions of Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules. which cannot be regarded as a final product. Sales Tax was binding upon the assessing authority and. though it is nothing but a waste obtained during the manufacture of sugar waste. All. simply because. if the cenvat credit'has been taken on the inputs which are used for manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods.htm 30-09-2016 . file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. but now the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice. Ahmedabad Electricity Co.Page 5 of 9 reported in 2003(09)LCX0032 Eq 2004 (176) ELT 0819 (Tri-Delhi). The petitioner has deposited the amount alongwith the interest under protest. Customs. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Mercury Laboratories Pvt. On amendment being made in Section 2(d) of the Act. v. has also issued another Circular. 1944 are not applicable. which specifically direct for charging such duty. and therefore. 2004. hence. on the plea of maintainability of the writ petition.P. In response. the Board issued a Circular dated 2810-2009. as in that case. the writ petition would be maintainable on the show cause notice. Central Excise and Service Tax. 2004. bagasse has been found to be marketable. issued a Circular dated 3-10-2009. State of U. it has been held by the Tribunal that bagasse obtained during manufacture of sugar is a waste product. then in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan. the Supreme Court has considered the duty upon the cinder. In turn. 2000 119 STC 271. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. saying that in view of the amended provisions aforesaid. on which no duty is payable. holding that the bagasse is covered by Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. and though it finds mention in the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff. but it does not become a final product. in support of his plea that merely because the bagasse is a marketable product. Ltd. duty cannot be imposed. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Circular has been issued by the Board and in consequence whereof.

then the manufacturer or provider of output service shall maintain separate accounts for receipt. - (1) The Cenvat Credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services. In view of the Circulars issued by the Board of Directors and thereafter by the Chief Commissioner. Central Excise and Service Tax. of value of the exempted services. List this matter in the week commencing 20-12-2010. the manufacturer of goods or the provider of output service. 6(2) and 6(3) of the aforesaid Rules. on the ground that the said inputs are used in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of that rule. there is no necessity to delve into the maintainability of the writ petition. except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2): Provided that the Cenvat credit on inputs shall not be denied to job worker referred to in rule 12AA of the Central Excise Tariff Rules. which are relevant. any duty can be charged and whether Rule 6 would be applicable for the purpose of charging duty. namely :- (i) the manufacturer of goods shall pay an amount equal to five per cent. or" file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. it reveals that after considering the maintainability of the writ petition. and manufacturers such final products or provides such output service which are chargeable to duty or tax as well as exempted goods or services. are reproduced as under :"Rule 6 : Obligation of manufacturer of dutiable and exempted goods and provider of taxable and exempted services. stay further proceedings in the matter in pursuance of the notices impugned dated 24-92010 and 27-9-2010. prima facie. as applicable to him.htm 30-09-2016 . therefore. shall follow either of the following options. consumption and inventory of input and input service meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or in providing output service and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable final products or in providing output service and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods or service and take Cenvat credit only in that quantity of input or input service which is intended for use in the manufacture of dutiable goods or in providing output service on which service tax is payable. we are. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rules (1) and (2)." 16. till the next date of listing. 17. of value of the exempted goods and the provider of output service shall pay an amount equal to six percent. opting not to maintain separate accounts. (2) Where a manufacturer or provider of output service avails of Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs or input services. satisfied that the authorities would not be in a position to take a view against the aforesaid circulars.Page 6 of 9 The issue requires consideration whether on bagasse. Therefore. who manufactures dutiable goods and who manufactures exempted goods. Rules 6(001). We. Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules provides for obligation of manufacturer. Customs. A careful perusal of the aforesaid order. 2002. the interim order has been passed.

State Sugar Corporation and held that the Bagasse and press mud are not final products of the manufacturer. it was specifically referred in para 2 that the appeal filed by the Commissioner. Under Rule 6(3) the manufacturer of dutiable final product and the manufacturer of exempted goods who does not maintain separate accounts shall be liable to pay an amount of 5% of the value manufactured goods. 23. but it is a residue/waste. Shakumbhari Sugar and Allied Industries Limited (2003 (09)LCX0032 Eq 2004 (176) ELT 0819 (Tribunal)]. therefore. 22. the manufacture of dutiable goods and manufacture of exempted goods are conditions precedent. Meerut v. Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills and Commissioner Central Excise. M/s. but it is a waste. Since waste is never manufactured and it only emerges in the process of manufacture of final product. The law is well settled that 'bagasse' generated from the crushing of the sugarcane is neither manufactured goods nor manufactured final product. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the judgment dated 22-11-2004 of Tribunal. which emerges from the crushing of sugarcane for the manufacture of final product. Shakumbhari Sugar & Allied Industries Limited [2005(08)LCX0291 Eq 2005 (189) ELT A062 (S. A perusal of Rule 6(1) clearly shows that the manufacturer has to manufacture both dutiable goods as well as exempted goods. Since bagasse is not manufactured goods but is a waste product which emerges/comes into existence in the process of manufacture of sugar. it is not manufacture of exempted goods. for applicability of Rule 6. Such 'bagasse' is nothing but a waste obtained during manufacture of sugar waste cannot be regarded as a final product exempt from duty for invoking provisions of Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules. 20. whereby it has been held that the 'Bagasse' obtained during the course of manufacture of sugar out of sugarcane may find an entry in Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff.)]. Rules 6(2) stipulates that where a manufacturer avails Cenvat credit in respect of any inputs and manufactures such final products which are chargeable to duty as well as exempted goods. U. 21. the manufacturer shall maintain separate accounts for receipt. 24. uphold the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. but it does not become a final product merely on such entry. 1944. 2791 of 2005 preferred by the department vide judgment and order dated 21-7-2010. recovery of 8% amount of the waste Bagasse and press mud cleared by the said sugar company was held to be not justified.Page 7 of 9 18. upheld the findings recorded by the Tribunal that reversal of 8% under Rule 57CC is not applicable as 'Bagasse' is not a final product.htm 30-09-2016 . Rule is not applicable to bagasse which is admittedly a waste.C. Accordingly. The said finding has also been followed in the cases of Central Excise Commissioner v. The Apex Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal preferred by the department in the case of CCE v. consumption and inventory of input meant for use in the manufacture dutiable final product and the quantity of input meant for use in the manufacture of exempted goods. namely. In the instant case 'sugar' is the final product and molasses is an intermediary product or by-product.P. file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal No. sugar. Central Excise in the case of CCE v.

In view of the judgment of Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. Section 2(d). 2004. Gonda. but the duty cannot be imposed as it does not involve any manufacturing activity simply by adding an explanation under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act. Central Excise v. . material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable.For the purposes of this clause. Balrampur Chini Mills. Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. 26. Bagasse being not a manufactured goods and being a waste. In the case of Commissioner. Para 2 of the judgment refers to Rule 57CC which is now equivalent to Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 13-5-2008. as stated hereinabove. 30. . Explanation. 27. which. hence the benefit of the Mod vat credit cannot be denied. Union of India .2008 (232) ELT 7. namely. it is not in dispute that the bagasse is an agricultural waste of sugarcane. bagasse was being bought and sold for a consideration and even after the amendment in 2008 it is being bought and sold for a consideration. v. 2004 is equivalent and analogous to Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules. bagasse is not a manufactured goods and it is never manufactured. Gas Authority of India Ltd. it was marketable earlier also and no difference has been made about the marketability of bagasse on account of addition of explanation to Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act inasmuch as it does not cease to be waste and it does not become a manufactured final product for the purposes of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules. which are in respect of both the period. 25.e. as amended by Finance Act.f. the Circular of the Chief Commissioner. Thus. 2008. w. As held by the Apex Court. is an agricultural waste to be a dutiable item and the Chief Commissioner vide Circular dated 3-10-2009 nullified the judgment and order dated 21-7-2010 rendered in Civil Appeal No. whereby the definition of 'goods' has been defined will not make bagasse.Page 8 of 9 Kicha Sugar Co. Hence.2009 (233) ELT 301. 1985 (5 of 1986) as being subject to a duty of excise and includes salt. hence Rules 6(2) and 6(3) are not applicable. "goods" includes any article. 29. 2791 of 2005. 28. which has been interpreted by the Bombay High Court in the case of Rallis India Ltd. sugar. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that rules denying benefit of Mod vat credit can only be in respect of final products and since the commodity mentioned in the show cause notice was not final product. 2791 of 2005. neither Rule 57CC nor Rule 6(2) is applicable. 26 and 28 refer to the waste which is not final product. So far as the added to Section 2(d). though marketable product. is reproduced as under :- "excisable goods" means goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. decided on 21-7-2010. Paragraphs 25. Commissioner of Central Excise v. but it only emerges in the process of final product.htm 30-09-2016 . as mentioned in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment. Hence. it only refers to the goods which is capable of being bought and sold shall be deemed to be marketable. Bagasse is classified under sub-heading 2303 20 00 of Central Excise Tariff Act. Central file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. Earlier also. Limited was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20-2-2004. 1944.

Equivalent 2014 (300) ELT 0372 (All. all the writ petitions are allowed and impugned Circular dated 28-102009. Lucknow as well as Circular of Central Board of Excise and Customs are liable to be quashed which is the basis for issuing the demand. it should be returned to them.e.) file:///C:/Program%20Files%20(x86)/lawcrux/LcxTimeTrim5/dox/gPrint. neither the penalty nor the interest can be charged from the petitioners. in view of the fact that the petitioners are not liable to duty either by payment or by reversal in respect of bagasse sold by the petitioner.f. the entire deposited amount shall returned to them. it has been mentioned that as per Rule 6 of the Cenvat credit is availed on the inputs which are used in the manufacture of both dutiable and final products.htm 30-09-2016 . issued by the Central Excise. then an amount equal to 10% (upto 6th July.P. In view of above discussion. U. the Circular dated 3-10-2009. 7-7-2009) of the sale value of exempted final products is required to be paid. within a maximum period of four weeks. issued by the Joint Commissioner. As some of the petitioners deposited the entire duty and interest under protest. In the impugned notice dated 27-9-2010. 32.Page 9 of 9 Excise. Customs Central Excise and Service Tax are hereby quashed. Lucknow and demand notice dated 24/27-9-2010. Therefore.. from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 2009) or 5% (w. issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. As the petitioners have paid the entire duty and interest under protest. 31.