2009 (4) TMI 686

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... S/Shri S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advocate, Sourav Bagaria and Partha Banerjee, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice President]. -  Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby credit of Rs. 7,69,902.29 (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Two and Twenty-Nine paisa only) was allowed. 3. Briefly sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of Central Excise allowing the merger of the two units may not be objected to but the accumulated credit which is in respect of molasses cannot be used for payment of duty towards sugar. 5. Main objection of the Revenue is that molasses is not an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of sugar. 6. The Respondents submitted that as Revenue is not objecting to the merg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as such. 8. We find that Revenue in the present Appeal is not objecting to the order passed in respect of merger of two units. After merger the Respondents are manufacturing sugar as well as denatured Ethyl Spirit which is liable to duty as well as Rectified Spirit which is not excisable. The Respondents were taking credit in respect of the common inputs and utilizing towards payment of du....