9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s engaged in the manufacture of Denatured Alcohol and Ethyl Alcohol from the captive use of molasses generated in the factory. The molasses were used in the manufacture of dutiable Denatured Ethyl Alcohol and non excisable alcohol for human consumption called Rectified Spirit. During the period from March 2005 to April 2005, the respondents cleared Alcohol from the factory which was manufactured from the molasses issued for the manufacture of rectified spirit. The department had recovered the duty of molasses contained in the Ethyl Alcohol cleared during March 2005 to April 2005 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- PMT. as the rate of duty on molasses was revised upwards to Rs. 1000/- PMT w.e.f.1.3.2005. The respondent paid differential duty of Rs. 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent. In the impugned order, on the issue of unjust enrichment, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has given finding that the appellant had cleared the goods i.e. molasses to themselves and hence passing of the burden does not arise. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Shri S.V. Nair Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that respondent had a practice to discharge excise duty on molasses at the time of clearance of the final products as at the time of manufacture of molasses, it cannot be ascertained that how much molasses is used in dutiable and non-dutiable goods. According to such practice, the duty liability arises on the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1000/- PMT paid was manufactured during the period December 2004 to February 2005. He also given the finding that there is no manufacturing of molasses from 1.3.2005 to 30.4.2005. From this finding, I do not find any force in the submission of the Revenue that on such production of molasses the duty is payable as per the revised rate of Rs. 1000/- PMT instead of Rs. 500/- PMT which was prevailing prior to 1.3.2005 therefore, I agree with the finding of the Ld. Commissioner. I hold that the respondent have paid excess duty on the molasses used captively. As regard unjust enrichment, I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) contended that the unjust enrichment is not applicable for the reason that the molasses was used captively, I do not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
