2017 (11) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heard the Parties. 3. The facts precisely are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol, Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Fusel Oil. Only denatured Ethyl Alcohol and Fusel Oil falling under Chapter sub-heading Nos.2207 20 00 and 3824 90 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1995 (5 of 1986) are liable to duties of excise. Molasses is the basis raw material on which the appellants avail CENVAT credit to the extent of duties of Excise paid thereon. Ethyl Alcohol is produced by the process of fermentation and distillation of molasses. Part of the ethyl Alcohol is converted into denatured Ethyl Alcohol and part of it is converted into IMFL. Whenever ethyl alcohol o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nting to Rs. 48,78,37,276/- already reversed by the appellants at the time of clearance e of Ethyl Alcohol, and IMFL and effectuated his orders on the grounds that Tariff item 2207 and Tariff sub-heading No. 2207 20 00 do not include rectified spirit and as such is liable to be treated as non-excisable goods and secondly that the CENVAT chain is snapped when non-excisable product comes into existence hence CENVAT Credit is not admissible. 4. The learned Consultant referred to clause (xvi a), clause (xvi aa) and clause (xvi b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provide for making rule to allow credit of duty paid on raw material and service tax paid on taxable service when used in the manufacture of exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erchangeable name of the same product and there is no distinction. He invited reference to Final Order No.70392/2016-EX(DB) dated 26.5.2016 in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd Vs. CCE Lucknow and Final Order No.A/70345-70346/2017-EX(DB) dated 28.3.2017 in the case of M/s Balrampur Chini Mills and another Vs. CCE, Lucknow of this Tribunal wherein identical issue has been decided in the favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5. The learned authorised representative of the Revenue supported the finds of the order in Original. 6. We have considered the rival contention and perused the records. We find that identical issue has been resolved by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.70392/2016 EX(DB) dated 26.5.2017 in the case of B....