9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1200 - AT - Central ExciseExcise duty on malt extract - whether the malt extract, which arises during the course of manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), is liable to pay the duty as it is an excisable commodity falling under Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - Held that - Identical issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Ltd. & SKOL Breweries Ltd.(2003 (9) TMI 485 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) WHREIN held that the malt extract are WORT, which is not an marketable commodity, hence no duty demand can be raised. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved: Whether malt extract arising during the manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) is liable to duty under Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
Analysis: The appeal was filed against Order-in-Original No. 14/CEX/COMMR/2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad. The main issue was whether malt extract from the manufacturing of IMFL is excisable and liable to duty. The lower authorities found that the appellant, a manufacturer of IMFL, processed malt as a major raw material. The show-cause notice demanded duty on the malt extract, claiming it to be a marketable commodity. The appellant contested the notice on merits and limitation grounds, but the authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and interest. The appellant cited a Tribunal judgment in the case of Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Ltd. & SKOL Breweries Ltd., where it was held that malt extract is not a marketable commodity and no duty demand can be raised. The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the issues in the current case and the Mohan Rocky Springwater case were the same. The Tribunal, based on its previous judgment, concluded that the impugned order demanding duty on malt extract is unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that malt extract from the manufacturing of IMFL is not liable to duty as it is not a marketable commodity, following its previous judgment in a similar case.
|
