9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing MODVAT/CENVAT credit under Rule 57A/57AB of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The ethyl alcohol manufactured by the respondents was used in the manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol and for manufacture of country liquor in their factory. The input molasses was being used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted final product. In terms of Rule 57CC, the appellants were paying an amount equal to 8% of the value of that quantity of ethyl alcohol which was used captively for manufacture of country liquor. The value taken for paying the amount equal to 8% was not the sale value of the ethyl alcohol captively consumed, but was computed on the basis of comparable value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iquor). He also submitted that the decision of Savita Chemicals reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 394 on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied is not applicable to this case. 5. On the other hand, ld. advocate for the respondent reiterates the impugned order. 6. Heard and considered. 7. After considering the contention of both the sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is whether respondent has correctly paid amount equivalent to 8% the value of rectified spirit captively consumed by them in the manufacture of country liquor on the basis of sale price of same class of goods i.e. ethyl alcohol to independent buyers at factory gate. 8. The issue has been dealt by the lower appellate authority in detail a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Savita Chemical has categorically held that expression such goods does not mean similar goods or comparable goods, such goods mean goods of the same class or group. It is not the case of the department that the ethyl alcohol which was used captively by the respondent for the manufacture of country liquor was of different class or different group. Therefore, the contention that the sale price of exempted category of ethyl alcohol which was used captively by the respondent for manufacture of country liquor is not available cannot be accepted in the revenue's appeal. 9. We also do agree with the observations of the lower appellate authority and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order is upheld. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
