Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 644 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Excisability - Ethyl alcohol - N/N. 3/2005-CE (Serial No. 14) - case of Revenue is that the said product is not at all covered for Central Excise levy and hence, the Cenvat Credit Scheme itself is not available to the appellant - Held that: - similar matter came up for discussion by the Tribunal in the case of Rajshree Sugars [2014 (11) TMI 919 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that rectified spirit and extra neutral alcohol are non-excisable goods w.e.f. 01.03.2005, and therefore, the appellants are not eligible to avail the benefit of exemption N/N. 67/1995-CE on the molasses captively used in the manufacture of the said goods - The Tribunal held that after restructuring of Central Excise Tariff from 6 digit to 8 digit w.e.f. 01.03.2005, rectified spirit and extra neutral alcohol are exempted by Notification 3/2005-CE and the appellants had correctly discharged their obligation under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The reliance placed by the Revenue on the entries made in HSN in order to understand the scope of Central Excise Tariff is not proper in the context of the present case. It is clear that in Central Excise levy, there are certain restrictions placed by the Constitution with reference to the powers of Union Govt. to tax on alcohol for human consumption. With this background, the Central Excise Tariff is structured and it is not equivalent or comparable to the HSN to that extent - as such there is no dispute about the nature of product cleared by the appellant. The reliance by original authority on the comparison with HSN is misplaced. The finding that the entry 2207.20 does not cover undenatured ethyl alcohol having strength at 80% and above and hence the same is non-excisable, is not legally and factually sustainable. Ethyl alcohol/ rectified spirit which is not for human consumption is finding place in tariff item 2207 2000. The impugned order holding ethyl alcohol as non excisable product is not legally sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|