9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. In these appeals filed by the appellants, common impugned order-in-appeal has been challenged vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed five orders-in-original of Deputy Commissioner confirming the duty demand with equal amount of penalty and interest as detailed theiragainst the appellants. 2. The issue in all the appeals relates to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrectness of the impugned order. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The perusal of the record shows that the appellants are no doubt engaged in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol (exempted excisable goods) as well as ethyl alcohol denatured (dutiable excisable goods) and molasses is their common input for both the products. But it remains undisputed that during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... product. The rule clearly stipulates that when the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted products, the manufacturer shall maintain separate inventory and accounts of the receipt and use of the inputs for this purpose and shall not take credit of the duty paid on such inputs. The appellants did not maintain any separate inventory and accounts in respect of the molasses u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is common. The fact they had been reversing the credit amount @ 8% of the value of clearances of the exempted products, clearly shows that they were under the bona fide belief that they were protected by the provisions of Rule 57AD(2). The record also shows that they had even cleared the dutiable and excisable products (ethyl alcohol denatured) during the year 2000-2001 which was manufactured by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
