9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 229 - AT - Central ExciseValuation - Denaturing of goods - whether appellant is liable to pay duty on Ethyl Acetate cleared to sugar factory for denaturing purposes or otherwise? - Held that - identical issue of the same appellant was decided by this Bench in the case of LAXMI ORGANIC INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD 2007 (7) TMI 491 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , wherein same issue was in dispute before the Division Bench, where it was held that duty is not required to be paid on denaturing of goods - appellant not liable to pay duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on Ethyl Acetate cleared to a sugar factory for denaturing purposes or otherwise. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal dated 7th February 2008 and two other orders dated 5th February 2008. The main issue in question was whether the appellant should pay duty on Ethyl Acetate cleared to a sugar factory for denaturing purposes. The adjudicating authority ruled in favor of the assessee, but the first appellate authority allowed the department's appeal based on a previous CESTAT decision and the eligibility of the appellant to take CENVAT credit on denaturants. The first appellate authority held that Ethyl Acetate sent to distilleries was a final product for the appellant and could not be cleared without payment of duty under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal also referred to a previous case involving the same appellant where the issue was decided in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous orders and allowing the appeals. Due to the finality of the decision in the previous case, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay duty on Ethyl Acetate cleared for denaturing purposes based on the interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the classification of the product as a final product. The decision was influenced by previous rulings involving the same appellant, which had already been decided in favor of the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the finality of the previous decisions.
|
