9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol-rectified and denatured falling under Tariff Heading 22.04 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 besides V.P. Sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17. During the month of March, 2000 the appellants availed modvat credit facility of the duty paid on molasses being raw materia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the appellants proposing recovery of balance modvat credit of Rs. 3,25,654/- (Rs. 6,52,582/- -Rs. 3,26,928/-) for contravention of provisions of Rule 57 CC(9) read with Rule 57 AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Observing the principles of natural justice the impugned Order-in-Original dated 08.10.2001 was issued confirming the demand of Rs. 3,25,654/- along with interest and imposing equal pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case the common raw material i.e. molasses was used for manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol or rectified spirit an exempted excisable product which was cleared at nil rate of duty. As per records of the appellants for March, 2000, they cleared 2,78,000 BL of Ethyl Alcohol valued at Rs. 40,86,600/- and paid duty of Rs. 3,26,928/- @ 8% of value of exempted goods) for which 13,051,64 Qtls of molasses was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of provision of 5 under Rule 57 CC would be sufficient. There is no dispute above the fact that the appellant was actually manufacturing dutiable as also exempted final product and was maintaining a common record in respect of the credit availed on the raw materials used in the manufacture of both the products. They were also paying 8% of the value of exempted final product. However, it so ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than the amount of credit so availed, thus prompting the revenue to take a reverse stand than the one taken by them in routine i.e. to in 8% of the value of the final product, which in most of the cases is higher than the credit involved. 5. The Tribunal in the case of Rochi Ram and Sons Vs. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (155) ELT 96 (Tri.-Del.) has dealt with a more or less identical issue and held that Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
