9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of ethyl alcohol/rectified spirit which in turn is partly consumed in the manufacture of acetic acid on which excise duty liability is being discharged. The rectified spirit is chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. On the molasses consumed in the manufacture of rectified spirit, the appellant availed the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 during the period April 2000 to May, 2001 which grants exemption to goods captively consumed within the factory of manufactures subject to the condition that the final product is subject to payment of duty and is not exempt from or chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty. However, while clearing the rectified spirit manufactured by them, the appellant paid an amount @ 8% of the value of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the relevant period, the clearances of molasses under Notification No. 67/95-CE and the clearance of rectified spirit at 8% of the price of the said goods were declared and, therefore, the fact that they were availing Notification No. 67/95-CE was known to the department and these facts were not suppressed from the department. In view of the above, invocation of extended period of time cannot be sustained and, therefore, the entire duty demand is time-barred. 3.2 Thirdly, it is contended that even if they had discharged duty liability on the molasses, they would have been eligible to take credit of the same and, therefore, the entire transaction is one of revenue neutrality. Therefore, in the absence of any loss to the exchequer, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the said exemption. This situation got rectified only in 01/06/2001 when Notification No. 67/95-CE was amended, which provided for payment of duty of a sum on the exempted final products as prescribed under Rule 57AD. In other words, prior to 01/06/2001, there was no provision in Notification No.67/95-CE for discharge of a sum @8% on the value of the final products which were chargeable to 'nil' rate of duty or exempted from payment of duty. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that, since they were discharging a sum @8% on the value of the exempted final products would entitle them to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-CE is without any merit and we reject the same. 5.2 However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
