Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on common inputs could be denied on the ground that denatured spirit was not manufactured, and whether the appellant was entitled to credit when exempted rectified spirit and dutiable denatured spirit were both cleared during the relevant period.
Analysis: The appellant used common inputs in the manufacture of both exempted rectified spirit and dutiable denatured spirit and followed the scheme under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The finding that denatured spirit was not manufactured was rejected, as the process of denaturing involved manufacture of denatured spirit and not merely mixing toxin in a tanker. The fact that only some consignments of denatured spirit were cleared during the period did not disqualify the appellant from treating itself as a manufacturer of both exempted and dutiable goods. Credit on common inputs was therefore not liable to be denied merely because a substantial part of the output was exempted.
Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was not sustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the credit claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: When a manufacturer clears both exempted and dutiable final products and maintains the scheme prescribed for common inputs, Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely because the dutiable product was manufactured only during part of the relevant period or because the department disputes the manner in which the dutiable product came into existence.