2019 (8) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed on irregular credit for Ethanol under Chapter 29

The appeal filed by the department regarding the irregularly availed credit on Ethanol was dismissed. The classification of Ethanol under Chapter 29 was ... Eligibility for input tax credit - classification of ethanol under Chapter 29 - excisability of alcohol-containing products - precedent of the Appellate Tribunal - stare decisis and reliance on respondent's own case - consistency with jurisdictional High Court decisionEligibility for input tax credit - classification of ethanol under Chapter 29 - excisability of alcohol-containing products - Whether the respondents were entitled to avail input credit on ethanol purchased from a supplier who had paid excise duty on the product which, according to the department, contained alcohol and was not classifiable under Chapter 29, and therefore not excisable. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found the controversy to be conclusively covered by earlier orders in the respondent's own case and by Tribunal precedents. The department's contention that the product was not classifiable under Chapter 29 and hence not excisable, thereby disentitling the respondents to credit, was negatived in those earlier decisions. The Tribunal noted that the same issue had been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in proceedings concerning similar facts, reinforcing the applicability of the prior Tribunal rulings. In view of the binding precedents and the final orders in the respondent's own case, the departmental appeal lacked merit and required dismissal. [Paras 2, 4, 5]The departmental appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit, following the Tribunal's earlier decisions and the corroborative decision of the jurisdictional High Court.Final Conclusion: The appeal by the department was dismissed; the respondent's entitlement to the input credit on ethanol stands upheld in view of the Tribunal's earlier orders and the supporting decision of the jurisdictional High Court. Issues:1. Allegation of irregularly availed credit on Ethanol2. Classification of Ethanol under Chapter 293. Eligibility of respondents for credit4. Decision in respondent's own case and previous judgments5. Appeal filed by the departmentAnalysis:1. The case involves an allegation that the respondents irregularly availed credit on Ethanol, which was used as an input for manufacturing final products. The excise duty on the ethanol was paid by M/s Andhra Sugars Limited, the supplier. The original authority confirmed the demand for recovery of wrongly availed credit, along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside this order, leading to the department filing the present appeal.2. The key issue in this case revolves around the classification of Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) under Chapter 29. It was contended that since the product contained alcohol and was not classifiable under Chapter 29, it was not excisable goods, making the respondents ineligible for credit. The decision in the respondent's own case and previous judgments were cited to support this argument.3. The Ld. AR for the department reiterated the grounds of appeal, emphasizing the need to recover the wrongly availed credit. However, based on the decision in the respondent's own case and the judgment upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the appeal filed by the department was deemed to be without merits.4. It was highlighted that the decision in the respondent's own case, along with the judgment reported in [2016 (339) ELT 263 (Tri.-Hyd.)] and Final Order No. 22100-22102/2015, supported the position that the appeal lacked merit. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision upheld by the High Court in Commissioner vs. Neuland Laboratories Limited [2015(319) ELT A 140 (A.P)] on a similar issue further strengthened the dismissal of the appeal.5. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the department was dismissed based on the precedents set by the decision in the respondent's own case and the supportive judgments. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, bringing closure to the dispute.