2017 (5) TMI 391 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of rectified spirit - The contention of revenue is that with effect from 01.03.2005 Central Excise Tariff item no. 22072000 covers ethyl alcohol and other spirit Denatured of any strength. Therefore, the product known as rectified spirit does not exist in Central Excise Tariff and on fermentation of molasses rectified spirit comes into existence which does not find place in Central Excise Tariff - whether ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit are two different commodities or one and the same commodity? Held that - ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit are one and the same - rectified spirit which is not used for human consumption is nothing but ethyl alcohol and is finding place in tariff item no. 22072000 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods for manufacturing denatured spirit.
- Classification of rectified spirit under Central Excise Tariff.
- Whether rectified spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol.

Admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods for manufacturing denatured spirit:
The appellants, having a composite mill with sugar and distillery divisions, faced a dispute regarding the availability of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods for manufacturing denatured spirit. The Revenue contended that the emergence of rectified spirit during the manufacturing process affected the admissibility of CENVAT credit. The original authority upheld the demand, leading to the appeal. The appellants argued that there were no provisions disallowing CENVAT credit if a non-excisable product emerged during the manufacturing of an excisable product. They maintained that rectified spirit was essentially ethyl alcohol and should be classified under tariff item no. 22072000. The Tribunal found that pre-denatured ethyl alcohol was covered under chapter Sub Heading No. 2204.90 before 01.03.2005. The issue revolved around whether ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit were distinct commodities.

Classification of rectified spirit under Central Excise Tariff:
The dispute centered on the classification of rectified spirit under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue argued that rectified spirit did not find a place in the tariff after 01.03.2005, impacting the availability of CENVAT credit. The Tribunal examined the historical classification of ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit, noting that before 01.03.2005, rectified spirit was covered under chapter Sub Heading No. 2204.90. The Tribunal referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous case, establishing that ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit were essentially the same. This led to the conclusion that rectified spirit, when not for human consumption, was indeed ethyl alcohol and should be classified under tariff item no. 22072000.

Whether rectified spirit is distinct from ethyl alcohol:
The Tribunal delved into the question of whether rectified spirit was distinct from ethyl alcohol. Relying on the Supreme Court's observation that rectified spirit was purified spirit with a high ethyl alcohol content, the Tribunal concluded that ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit were synonymous. This finding supported the appellants' argument that rectified spirit should be considered ethyl alcohol and classified under the relevant tariff item. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the show cause notices were unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.