9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d under one single registration certificate issued under the Central Excise Rules. Thus, the entire complex of the appellant is one single factory of production within the meaning of the Central Excise Rules. The molasses which is in fact a waste product unavoidably emerging during the manufacturing process of sugar is consumed captively by the appellant in its distillery for the manufacture of ethyl alcohol or denatured ethyl alcohol. Such captive consumption is effected by the appellant by way of transfer of molasses by pipeline on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. The appellant availed cenvat credit of the duty paid on molasses. For the sake of operational convenience, the appellant was maintaining two separate accounting regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was registered as Appeal No. learned V(EA-2)MOD/03/2003. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided the department's appeal with another appeal vide his common order No. BPS (207)/2003 dated 23.7.2003 whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the department's appeal upholding the order in original passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Revenue preferred further appeal before this Tribunal against the order-in-appeal dated 23.7.2003. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. E/3343/03-MUM. The appeal was decided by this Tribunal by a final order dated 8.3.2011 having No. A/417/11/EB/C-II whereby the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed. Revenue then filed an application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) in respect of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice issued by revenue and proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The Assistant Commissioner then passed his OIO No. 06/CEX/AC/2013-14 dated 29.08.2013. By the said order, the Assistant. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs.77,59,089/- and has imposed penalty of equal amount besides ordering interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by his impugned OIA No. AV (321) 284/2013 dated 18.12.2013 rejected the appellant's appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the show cause notice issued by Revenue states that molasses are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 2003, demands were raised on identical grounds and the same were dropped by Joint Commissioner of Central Excise following the ruling by Hon'ble Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in the case of Terna SSK Ltd. and the said orders passed by Joint Commissioner are upheld by learned Commissioner (Appeals) through common order-in-appeal dated 11.04.2019. 3. Heard the learned AR who has supported the impugned order. 4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions made during the hearing. We note that Revenue has not raised any objection to the availment of cenvat credit on molasses received by the appellant. The only objection raised by Revenue was that cenvat credit availed on molasses was not admissible to be u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
