TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
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 - (New and Powerful) ✕ 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 and ethyl alcohol are the same commodity for classification under tariff item 22072000, and whether CENVAT credit could be denied on the footing that rectified spirit emerged in the course of manufacture before denaturation.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the nature of the intermediate product generated in a continuous manufacturing process from molasses. The tariff entry after 01.03.2005 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 noted that ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit are not different commodities. On that basis, the emergence of rectified spirit in the process did not create a distinct non-excisable product so as to break the credit chain or render the credit inadmissible.
Conclusion: Rectified spirit was held to be nothing but ethyl alcohol falling within tariff item 22072000, and the show cause notice seeking denial of CENVAT credit was held unsustainable. The appeal was rejected and the impugned order was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that an intermediate rectified spirit, being the same as ethyl alcohol, could not be treated as a separate excluded product for denying CENVAT credit in the manufacturing chain.
Ratio Decidendi: Where rectified spirit is only ethyl alcohol in another form and is covered by the applicable tariff entry, its emergence in a continuous process does not justify denial of CENVAT credit on the premise that a separate non-excisable product came into existence.
TaxTMI 
