TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities recorded that various products manufactured in the distillery unit are not excluded from the area based exemption. There is contradiction in the approach by the Revenue while denying the credit on capital goods and input services which were admittedly used in setting up and further manufacture in distillery unit. This aspect requires a fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/50486/2017-[DB] - A/50084/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 5-1-2018 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present Shri Aalok Arora, Advocate - for the appellant Present Shri H.C. Saini, AR - for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran 1. The appellant is operating a sugar mill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and were as such recognized by various authorities like State Excise Department and others under Factories Act etc. He further submits that though the appellant did not take separate Central Excise registration for the distillery unit, the fact that the distillery unit is located in an identifiable separate campus and the products manufactured in the said distillery units were cleared on payment of duty without availing area based exemption will clearly indicate that both the units are separate manufacturing in facility and be treated for Excise purpose accordingly. The appellants have filed intimation on 27/11/2014 with the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner regarding exercising option under Rule 6 (3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e separate Central Excise registration for the said distillery. It would appear that the appellant are praying that not taking separate registration under Central excise alone should not result in denial of Cenvat Credit on the capital goods and input service which are otherwise eligible when used for dutiable final products. We have perused certain sample ER-1 returns for the relevant period. It is clear that the appellants did discharge duty on carbon dioxide and denatured spirit cleared from the distillery during 2014. It is not clear as to how such duty payment was accepted/ assessed when the revenue contends that the assesee is one license holder and availing area based exemption for such license. In other words, if the unit is one and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
