9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le products - the quantity of molasses that will go into dutiable product will be known only at the point of time of de-naturing – Relying upon Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (6) TMI 471 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - the applicant is prima facie correct in taking the credit immediately on knowing the quantity of molasses used in the manufacture of the dutiable product - waiver of pre-deposit of dues gratned till the disposal – Stay granted. - E/497/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2013 - Shri Pradip Kumar Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri P.C. Anand, Cons. For the Respondent: Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR ORDER Per Mathew John: The applicant is a manufacturer of potable alcohol, Acetalde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, the first output is not an excisable product and it is the downstream products, which are actually dutiable. It is argued that molasses is not an input for such items being cleared. The second issue which Revenue has raised is that the applicant was taking credit based on worksheet rather than on any duty paying documents. There was also an argument that as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, credit should be taken immediately on receipt molasses and applicant has not taken the credit immediately upon receipt of molasses but only at the time of de-naturing alcohol based on a backward calculation which is not authorized by the Rules. 3. Based on such argument, Revenue issued a show-cause notice for denial of the entire CENVAT credit on mol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing decisions in favour of the applicants. Therefore, he prays that the appeal may be admitted without pre-deposit: (i) Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T.676 (Tri.-Chennai). (ii) Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.234 (Tri.-Bang.). (iii) SCI India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T.565 (Tri.-Kolkata). (iv) SCI India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna reported in 20012 (279) E.L.T.293 (Tri.-Kolkata). 7. Opposing the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant, the Ld. AR for Revenue submits that as per the CENVAT Credit Rules, the assessee should have taken cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
