TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rectified spirit formed in the course of manufacture is the same as ethyl alcohol for the purpose of tariff item 22072000, and whether CENVAT credit is admissible where the intermediate product is treated as falling within the tariff entry.
Analysis: The appellants operated a composite unit in which molasses were fermented to obtain ethyl alcohol, which was then denatured. The dispute turned on whether rectified spirit and ethyl alcohol were different commodities after 01.03.2005, when tariff item 22072000 covered ethyl alcohol and other spirits, denatured, of any strength. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observation that rectified spirit is purified ethyl alcohol and treated the two as one and the same for excise classification. On that basis, rectified spirit not meant for human consumption was held to fall within tariff item 22072000, and the premise for denying credit was rejected.
Conclusion: Rectified spirit is ethyl alcohol, it is covered by tariff item 22072000, and the show cause notices were unsustainable; the assessee was entitled to relief.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an intermediate product is merely rectified spirit, being the same commodity as ethyl alcohol and covered by the relevant tariff entry, denial of CENVAT credit on the theory of a non-excisable in-between product is not sustainable.
TaxTMI 
