9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary In this appeal Final Order No.70332/2017 was passed at the conclusion of hearing on 15th December, 2016 wherein on the Order Sheet it was recorded Heard. Appeal dismissed, as facts are squarely covered in favour of Respondent by precedent order of this Bench in the case of E/52952/15-EX[DB] dated 26.05.2016 reported at 2016-TIOL-2063-CESTAT-All. 2. Subsequently, the Final Order was signed on 28th March, 2017. On 11th May, 2017 Mr. Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate pointed out that there are some mistakes apparent on the face of record, in the said Final Order, ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the product known 'as rectified' spirit does not exists 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 claim gets snapped by coming into existence of product (R-spirit) 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 respondent. Therefore, the respondent was served with the show cause notice dated 17.04.2013 proposing recovery of allegedly wrongly availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal 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 does not cover rectified spirit. 7. Heard the learned Authorized Representative of revenue. He reiterated the grounds of appeal. 8. Heard the learned counsel for respondent. He has reiterated his argument before the original authority and submitted various case laws. He has also submitted copy of Apex Court's 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 which clearly establ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctified 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 M/s Modi Distillery and others (supra) in para 9 has observed as follows : - The ISI specifications had divided ethyl alcohol into several kinds of alcohol. Beverages and industrial alcohols were clearly and differently treated. Recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
