9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tariff, Ethyl Alcohol was an excisable goods as it found mention in the tariff but not after restructuring of the tariff. The Tribunal in the matter of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. seems to have dealt with the period post 2005. When the basic defence of the appellant is the decision of Tribunal in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd., the Tribunal ought to have dealt with the same - This is particularly so as it goes to the root of the dispute – order set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the stay application afresh – Decided in favour of Assessee. - Central Excise Appeal (L) No. 247 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2013 - Mohit S Shah And M S Sanklecha, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. M. H. Patil with Ms. Aparna Hirandagi For the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the view that credit of duty on molasses could not be taken by the appellant as it was used in manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol. This was on the basis that Ethyl Alcohol is non excisable goods. Consequently the revenue demanded the credit so taken on the molasses used in manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand holding that Ethyl Alcohol is not subject to Central Excise Levy but to State Excise levy and therefore is not an exempted excisable goods. Consequently the demand raised in respect of credit taken on Molasses used in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol was confirmed by the Adjudicating authority along with equivalent penalty. 6) Being aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal and so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The case of the revenue is that prior to restructuring of the tariff, Ethyl Alcohol was an excisable goods as it found mention in the tariff but not after restructuring of the tariff. The Tribunal in the matter of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. (supra) seems to have dealt with the period post 2005. 10) Therefore, without going into the merits of the appellants contention that the decision of the Tribunal in Ugar Sugar Works(supra) is applicable to the present facts, we are of the view that when the basic defence of the appellant is the decision of Tribunal in Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal ought to have dealt with the same. This is particularly so as it goes to the root of the dispute. 11) In view of the above facts, we set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
