9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndenatured Ethyl Alcohol' ̇was classifiable under the heading 2204 titled "Ethyl Alcohol of any strength whether denatured or not, but not including alcoholic liquor for human consumption." There were two sub-headings under this heading: 2204.10 is "Denatured Ethyl Alcohol of any strength" while 2204.90 is "other." Therefore, 'Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol' would fall under 2204.90 and the rate of duty was Nil. This view is affirmed by this Tribunal in the Appellant's own case vide 2018 (364) ELT 691 (Tri.- Chennai) [at para 10]. 2. On and after 01.03.2005 consequent to the change in the tariff system, "Ethyl Alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength" was tariff item 2207 20 00 and a rate of 16% was applicable. Undenatured Eth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provider of output service, opting not to maintain separate accounts, shall follow either of the following conditions, as applicable to him, namely :- (a) if the exempted goods are - i) goods falling within heading No.22.04 of the Frist Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the said First Schedule); ....." 7. From Rule 6(3)(a) it will be seen that if the exempted goods fall within the heading 22.04 (as the undenatured ethyl alcohol manufactured by the Appellant does), the manufacturer is required to pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs and input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of such goods at the time of their clearance. Until 28.02.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts the claim, observing that what was wrongly availed had been reversed and that there was thus no question of a claim for refund. 10. In first appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 183/2006 dated 11.12.2006 has upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that non-excisable goods could not be treated at par with exempted goods. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Tribunal in CCE Vs Kesar Enterprises Ltd. - 2001 (130) ELT 93 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE Raipur Vs Orissa Concrete & Allied Indus - 2001 (127) ELT 178 (Tri.-Del.). The Commissioner (Appeals) then holds that the Appellant had thus wrongly availed CENVAT credit in respect of the non-excisable goods, and, like the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. That case is thus distinguishable on two points: First, it dealt with Denatured Alchohol and not Undenatured Alchohol; and second, the question answered there concerned the dutiability of the Molasses used as 'inputs'. 13. In support of the same proposition, learned counsel places reliance also on Rajshree Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs CCE Puducherry - 2016 (343) ELT 462 (Tri.-Chennai) This case too was a case where the question related only to Denatured Alcohol and not to Undenatured Alcohol as in the present case. 14. Therefore, the case laws of Karmveer and Rajshree Sugars Supra do not support the case of the Appellant. 15. On the other hand, the decision of this Tribunal in the Appellant's own case is that Und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
