Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 12) TMI 314 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , that the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol is not excisable. Once the goods are not excisable, they cannot be considered exempt to fall within the scope of Rule 6(3). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order was thus right in holding that the Appellant could not have claimed credit in the first place so as to reverse the same by payment, and that the reversal of such credit by payment p ut the Appellant in a position in which it was compliant with the law. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) was also right in holding that there was no question of granting refund as claimed. Conclusion - The goods not classified as excisable under the tariff cannot be treated as exempt and do not fall within the scope of Rule 6( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o other tariff item in which it fell and that Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol was, on and after 01.03.2005, not excisable goods at all. This view too is affirmed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid order in the Appellant s own case. 3. Until 28.02.2005, the Appellant treated the goods as exempt. Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 contemplates two different methods for the payment of the CENVAT credit claimed in respect of the manufacture of exempted goods. Sub-rule (2) contemplates a situation where, for the receipt, consumption and inventory of inputs and input services meant for use in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, separate accounts are maintained. Sub-rule (3) contemplates a situation where no such separate accounts are ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 01.03.2005 until 31.12.2005), the Appellant claims that it proceeded on the misconception that the same position would continue to apply and continued to pay amounts equivalent to the aforesaid CENVAT credit. It is the Appellant s contention that subsequently, the Appellant discovered that since Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol found no mention in the tariff on and after 01.03.2005 it was no longer an item of exempted goods but were not excisable goods at all, and accordingly, filed a claim for the refund of the CENVAT credit paid by it on the basis of this mistake , for the period from 01.03.2005 to 31.12.2005. 9. This claim came to be rejected by the Adjudicating Authority vide the Order-in-Original No. 84/2006-RF(C.Ex.) dated 28.07.2006 from w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d therefore not be refunded. 11. Before us, learned counsel for the Appellant places reliance on the decision in the Appellant s own case (supra). That was a case for the tax period from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2006. There, the Appellant reversed credit in terms of rule 6(3)(b) at 10% of the price of the non-dutiable Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol. However, the Department contended that the Appellant ought to have reversed the whole of the credit attributable to the Molasses that were used as inputs in the production of the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol. In this context, this Tribunal has given an unequivocal finding, at paragraph 11, that Undenatured Ethyl Alchohol are not goods specified in the tariff and are thus not goods specified in Rule 6(3). Eff .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cisable goods and exempt goods. The Appellant, in the statement of facts in this appeal, refers to the decision of this Tribunal in Titawai Sugar Complex Vs CCE Meerut 2002 (147) ELT 1069 (Tribunal), which holds that there is no question of exempting duty in respect of goods which are not excisable. This Tribunal has, in the Appellant s own case, held that the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol (the goods presently under consideration) are not excisable. Once goods are not excisable, they cannot be exempt. 16. We are therefore of the view, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the Appellant s own case, that the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol is not excisable. Once the goods are not excisable, they cannot be considered exempt to fall .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates