TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture of the exempted/non-excisable goods. Further, Extra Natural Alcohol is an intermediate product, which is used for manufacture of the denatured alcohol - denial of Cenvat benefit of central excise duty paid on capital goods is not proper and justified. Further, DDHS and Barli are not the final product manufactured by the appellant. Since, those products emerged during the course of manufacture of alcohol i.e. both dutiable as well as exempted, it will not be appropriate to deny the benefit of Cenvat Credit availed of capital goods used in the manufacture of such waste product. CENVAT credit - input services - construction service - Held that:- The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide paragraph 7 in the impugned order has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e factory premises of the appellant, the central excise officers observed that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 14,42,000/- on the capital goods, which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted grain base ENA/rectified spirit. It was further observed that the appellant had also availed input service credit amounting to ₹ 7,51,900/- on construction services, which were used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted composed fertilizer. Since the capital goods and input services were used/utilized by the appellant exclusively for manufacture of the exempted/non-dutiable goods, in terms of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the department had initiated show cause proceedings against the appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant on the capital goods installed in the factory, the Learned Advocate has relied on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Belgaum Vs. Vishwanath Sugars Ltd. 2015 (325) E.L.T. 588 (Kar.) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mankapur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 188 (Tri.-All.) to support such stand. 4. On the other hand, the Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. It is an admitted fact that on record that denatured spirit manufactured by the appellant is leviable to central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent regarding availment of such credit. I also find from the appeal records that the appellant has not made any specific grounds in support of its claim that it is entitle for the benefit of input service credit used in the construction activities. Therefore, in absence of proper substantiation of the issue, I am of the view that the impugned order denying the Cenvat benefit on input service amounting to ₹ 7,51,900/- cannot be interfered with at this juncture. In other words, the appellant is liable to pay/reverse Cenvat Credit on the input services used for the construction services and original order confirming the adjudged demand on such count is sustainable. 8. In view of above discussions, the impugned order, to the extent it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
