2015 (1) TMI 803 - HC - Central Excise

Benefit of the Notification 67/95 - molasses used captively for manufacture of rectified spirit and denatured spirit - Held that - As evident from the objection as made by the assessee, the issue pertains to rate of duty that is payable by the respondent, but for the notification in question. Therefore, the objection as raised by the respondent is liable to be sustained, more so, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs Collector of Customs (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), which decision has been followed by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs - Vadapalani Press 2015 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Court is not inclined to deal with the matter, while disposing off the present appeal as not maintainable, is inclined to grant liberty to the appellant/department to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court, if so advised - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order of Appellate Tribunal on entitlement to benefit of Notification No.67/95 for molasses used in manufacturing rectified spirit and denatured spirit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Core Issue - Entitlement to Notification No.67/95 Benefit:
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the respondent manufacturer/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 concerning the use of molasses for producing rectified spirit and denatured spirit. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee, granting the benefit of the notification. However, the Department contended in the appeal that such benefit was not applicable, specifically concerning duty liability. The respondent argued that the matter only pertained to the rate of duty, suggesting that the appeal should lie with the Supreme Court.

2. Legal Provisions and Precedents:
The High Court referred to Section 35G of the Act, which outlines the appeal process to the High Court for substantial questions of law. The Court noted that the issue at hand related to the rate of duty, which is a matter for the Supreme Court according to established legal principles. Citing precedents like Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Vadapalani Press, the Court supported the respondent's position on the nature of the appeal.

3. Jurisdiction and Disposition:
Considering the nature of the issue and the legal precedents, the High Court concluded that the appeal was not maintainable before them. However, the Court granted liberty to the appellant/department to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court if desired. The decision to dispose of the appeals without costs was made, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in matters related to the rate of duty and specific notifications.

In summary, the High Court addressed the core issue of entitlement to the benefit of Notification No.67/95 for molasses used in manufacturing spirits. By analyzing relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Court determined that the appeal did not fall within its jurisdiction due to the nature of the issue concerning duty rates. The Court granted liberty to the department to approach the Supreme Court for further recourse, ultimately disposing of the appeals without costs.