2015 (10) TMI 907 - AT - Central Excise

Duty demand - finished goods ethyl acetate cleared for Job work - Job worker pays the duty on denatured ethyl alcohol manufacturing by him including the cost of ethyl acetate - appellant takes the credit on duty paid by the job worker after receipt of goods - Held that - Issue involved has been decided in appellants own case reported in 2007 (7) TMI 491 - CESTAT, MUMBAI which has been upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on ethyl acetate before clearance.
2. Applicability of previous tribunal and high court decisions on the current case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of chemicals, sending ethyl acetate to a distillery for the production of denatured ethyl alcohol. The appellant did not pay excise duty on ethyl acetate during clearance, and the job worker did not claim any duty credit. Subsequently, duty was paid on denatured ethyl alcohol by the job worker, including the cost of ethyl acetate, and the goods were received by the appellant, who claimed credit for the duty paid. The Revenue contended that duty should have been paid on ethyl acetate before clearance.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that a previous tribunal order in the appellant's favor, upheld by the Bombay High Court, supported their position. The Revenue had not appealed against the High Court's decision, and all pending show cause notices were dropped based on the Commissioner's order. The tribunal noted the previous decision in the appellant's case and the High Court's affirmation, leading to the allowance of the appeals filed by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the significance of previous tribunal and high court decisions in similar cases, emphasizing the legal precedent and its impact on current disputes. The analysis underscores the importance of legal consistency and adherence to established rulings in resolving excise duty payment disputes.