9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside and the matter be remanded for adjudication. - Appeal allowed by way of remand - C.M.A. No. 1905 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2016 - S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. V. Sundareswaran For the Respondent : Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan JUDGMENT ( Judgment of the Court was made by S. Manikumar, J. ) Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.41001/2014 dated 11.12.2014 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Chennai - 600 006, reversing the order of original authority, namely Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem dated 28.11.2007 passed in No.10/2007. 2. Short facts leading to the appeal are that the respondent, namely M/s.Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal price of the un-denatured ethyl alcohol cleared from the factory in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and hence the appellant issued a show cause notice dated 05.02.2007. 3. The appellant submitted a reply to the show-cause notice on 12.05.2007. Rejecting the reply, the adjudicating Authority, passed an order dated 28.11.2007, disallowing Cenvat credit on molasses. The adjudicating Authority also imposed interest under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Penalty also been imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, alleging contravention of the said Rules. 4. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (ii) Non-De-natured ethyl Alcohol is exempted goods, the duty being levied is NIL as per Central Excise (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 2005. Consequently, the respondent had to reverse the CENVAT credit actually availed as per the OIO passed by the Adjudicating authority. (iii) The CESTAT had though admitted the fact that the respondent had not maintained separate accounts for the dutiable and non-dutiable goods had fell into an error in directing to remit 10% on the value of the finished goods instead of actual reversal of CENVAT credit availed on the exempted goods. (iv) Deletion of penalty is unwarranted. 8. On the side of the respondent, Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value of the finished goods instead of actual reversal of CENVAT credit availed on the exempted goods. (iv) Deletion of penalty is unwarranted. (v) Whether the undenatured ethyl alcohol/rectified spirit manufactured by the assessee are exempted goods in terms of Rule 2(d) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and consequently whether the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 apply to the present case? (vi) Whether the assessee is liable to pay 10% of the value of undenatured ethyl alcohol/rectified spirit at all in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? 10. Placing on record the above submissions, impugned Final Order No.41001/2014 dated 11.12.2014 passed by Customs, Excise and Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
