2012 (4) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. JUDGMENT [Judgment per : Subhash B. Adi, J.]. - This appeal is by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax questioning the order of the Appellate Tribunal in No. Excise 574/2005, dated 3-8-2009 [2010 (250) E.L.T. 390 (Tri. - Bang.)] reversing the Order-in-Original No. 12/2005, dated 22-3-2005. 2. The respondent-assessee had availed the benefit under Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the assessee is not entitled for Cenvat Credit Scheme and he is liable to pay the balance credit of ₹ 83,56,155/-, which benefit he had availed on the basis that he had manufactured the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the distillery. On the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee dated 25-10-2004. The assessee who was aggrieved by the Original Order, filed an appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and the process of manufacturing was complete. The dispute with regard to whether it was done within the distillery or not. But there is no evidence to show that the mixing is done outside the distillery. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show that the manufacturing process was outside the distillery and in fact in the original assessment it is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X