9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne and the same - rectified spirit which is not used for human consumption is nothing but ethyl alcohol and is finding place in tariff item no. 22072000 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50420, 50421 And 50422/2016-EX (DB) - A/70446-70448/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Bipin Garg (Advocate) For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Joint Commissioner) AR ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The present appeals are filed by the appellant-assessee against Order-in-Original No.50, 51 52/COMMR/LKO/CX/2014-15 dated 30.03.2015 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow. 2. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is that with effect from 01.03.2005 Central Excise Tariff item no.22072000 covers ethyl alcohol and other spirit Denatured of any strength. Therefore, the product known as rectified spirit does not exist in Central Excise Tariff and on fermentation of molasses rectified spirit comes into existence which does not find place in Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, though from said rectified spirit, denatured spirit is manufactured on which duty of excise is paid, the CENVAT credit gets snapped by coming into existence of product not finding place in Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods and input services going into manufacturer denatured spirit are not available to the appellants. Therefore, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or less similar to their contentions before the original authority. One of the grounds states that tariff item no. 22072000 is provided for ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength and contended that the description covered rectified spirit. They have further relies on various pronouncements. 4. Heard the learned counsel for appellants. He has reiterated his argument before the original authority and in the grounds of appeal and submitted various case laws. He has also submitted copy of Apex Courts ruling in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. M/s Modi Distillery etc. [1996 U.P.T.C.-312] he stated that in para 9 of the said ruling the Hon ble Supreme Court has given its observation about ethyl alcohol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 01.03.2005 and therefore CENVAT credit is not admissible as inputs input services and capital goods going into manufacture of rectified spirit and hence going into manufacture of denatured spirit. Before 01.03.2005, department accepted that rectified spirit is covered under chapter Sub Heading No.2204.90. As stated above, 2204.90 covers ethyl alcohol except one for human consumption and which are undenatured. Therefore, the issue to be decided is whether ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit are two different commodities or one and the same commodity. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Modi Distillery and others (supra) in para 9 has observed as follows :- The ISI specifications had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
