2015 (3) TMI 425 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - Benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 - Clearance of molasses for captive consumption - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Held that - Final order of this Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel in respect of the very same appellant on the very same issue is applicable to the facts of this case and the fact that the commissioner for a subsequent period has also followed this decision would support the case of the appellant. Moreover the decision in the case of Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 828 - CESTAT BANGALORE) is also applicable. In this view of the matter, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal. - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE on molasses for captive consumption.
2. Demand for refund of over Rs. 6.26 crores and additional demand of over Rs. 13.95 crores under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. The applicants were denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE on molasses cleared for captive consumption. A refund of more than Rs. 6.26 crores was granted but later demanded back, along with an additional amount of over Rs. 13.95 crores under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules.

2. The appellant's counsel referred to a previous Tribunal order (Final Order No.964/2007) which held that if the appellant reversed the input credit related to inputs used in manufacturing molasses, subsequently used in producing rectified spirit/neutral alcohol, no further duty or amount was payable on molasses or alcohol. This decision, unchallenged till then, was supported by a rejected ROM filed by the Revenue after eight months. The counsel also highlighted that a subsequent Commissioner had followed this Tribunal decision for a later period. Additionally, the counsel cited the decision in the case of Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. 2013 (289) E.L.T. 511 (Tri.-Bang.) to strengthen the appellant's case.

3. The Tribunal found that the previous order concerning the same appellant and issue was applicable in this case. The fact that a subsequent Commissioner had also adopted this decision supported the appellant's position. Furthermore, the decision in the Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. case was deemed relevant. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and granted a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.