9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 631 - AT - Central ExciseUtilisation of CENVAT Credit - cenvat credit availed on molasses not admissible to be utilized for payment of central excise duty on sugar - denial on the ground that molasses were not input for manufacture of sugar - HELD THAT - The very issue has been settled by Hon ble Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S TERNA SSK LTD 2017 (9) TMI 2020 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT where it was held that The substantial question of law framed on 18th February, 2015 is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. By following the ruling of Hon ble Bombay High Court, it is held that the impugned order-in-appeal is not sustainable. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: The utilization of cenvat credit on molasses for payment of central excise duty on sugar.
Summary: 1. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture and sale of various products, utilized cenvat credit from the distillery division for payment of central excise duty on sugar. The Revenue raised objections, contending that molasses, a by-product used for ethyl alcohol production, were not an input for sugar manufacturing. The Deputy Commissioner withdrew the show cause notice, but the Revenue appealed. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Deputy Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, leading to a Rectification of Mistake application. The High Court directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The appellant argued that the cenvat credit on molasses was eligible for payment of central excise duty on sugar as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. They cited a High Court ruling in a similar case. The Revenue did not object to the cenvat credit availed by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's decision supported the appellant's position, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside. (Order pronounced in the open court on 10.01.2024)
|
