Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Appellate Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on CENVAT credit for denatured spirit</h1> <h3>M/s Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow</h3> M/s Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow - 2018 (9) G. S. T. L. 280 (Tri. - All.) Issues involved:- Availability of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods for manufacturing denatured spirit.- Liability to pay duty on Molasses captively consumed.- Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff regarding rectified spirit and Ethyl Alcohol.- Admissibility of CENVAT credit chain in a continuous manufacturing process.- Comparison between Ethyl Alcohol and rectified spirit as commodities.Issue 1: Availability of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods for manufacturing denatured spirit.The appellant, a composite mill with Sugar and Distillery Divisions, faced a show cause notice challenging the availment of CENVAT credit and proposing duty on Molasses consumed. The Revenue argued that the CENVAT credit chain was broken due to the emergence of a product not listed in the Central Excise Tariff. The original authority upheld the demand and penalty, leading to the appeal. The appellant contended that rectified spirit was essentially Ethyl Alcohol, thus entitled to CENVAT credit. The Tribunal analyzed the manufacturing process, concluding that rectified spirit was indeed Ethyl Alcohol, finding a place in Tariff Item No.22072000. Consequently, the show cause notice was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.Issue 2: Liability to pay duty on Molasses captively consumed.The dispute revolved around the duty liability on Molasses used in the manufacturing process. The Revenue claimed duty payment was necessary for Molasses consumed internally. However, the appellant argued that rectified spirit, derived from Molasses, was Ethyl Alcohol, falling under Tariff Item No.22072000. The Tribunal concurred that rectified spirit was Ethyl Alcohol, thus dismissing the duty demand on Molasses consumed internally.Issue 3: Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff regarding rectified spirit and Ethyl Alcohol.The central question was whether rectified spirit and Ethyl Alcohol were distinct commodities or synonymous. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court ruling, establishing that rectified spirit was a form of Ethyl Alcohol. This interpretation led to the conclusion that rectified spirit was covered under Tariff Item No.22072000, aligning with Ethyl Alcohol classification.Issue 4: Admissibility of CENVAT credit chain in a continuous manufacturing process.The case highlighted the challenge of maintaining CENVAT credit continuity in a continuous manufacturing process. The appellant argued that the emergence of a non-excisable product did not render CENVAT credit inadmissible. The Tribunal examined the manufacturing flow, confirming that rectified spirit was Ethyl Alcohol, ensuring the admissibility of CENVAT credit throughout the process.Issue 5: Comparison between Ethyl Alcohol and rectified spirit as commodities.The distinction between Ethyl Alcohol and rectified spirit was crucial in determining the applicability of CENVAT credit and duty liabilities. By referencing a Supreme Court observation equating rectified spirit to Ethyl Alcohol, the Tribunal established that both terms referred to the same commodity. This finding supported the appellant's argument for CENVAT credit availability and dismissal of duty demands on Molasses consumed internally.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD addressed various issues concerning CENVAT credit, duty liabilities, Tariff interpretation, and product classification, ultimately favoring the appellant's contentions and allowing the appeal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found