2018 (7) TMI 153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (AR) for the Appellant Ms. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case of are that M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., the respondents herein, are manufacturers of sugar, molasses etc. and are also manufacturers of ethyl alcohol (rectified spirit) from captively consumed molasses. The department took a view that exemption availed by the respondent i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 9.1.2012, following the ratio of the Tribunal's decisions, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the department has now preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the following that the very same issue is pending before CESTAT, Chennai in respect of Appeal No. E/19/2010 filed by the very same respondents herein. Hence when the matter is pending before Tribunal, the lower a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....therein were eligible to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 67/95 in respect of the molasses captively consumed for manufacture of red sanders. On appeal by the department, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the department as reported in 2016 (332) ELT A194 (SC). 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. Evidently, the issue in dispute has already been decided by t....