2020 (1) TMI 420

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refinery in Jamnagar. The said Motor spirit was being cleared as such or after addition of 5% Ethanol. Motor spirit blended with Ethanol was being sold as Motor Spirit (Petrol) at the petrol pumps and outlets where Motor spirit (without Ethanol) was being sold at same price under the same name of Motor Spirit. The case of the department is that addition of 5% Ethanol in the Motor Spirit is amounting to manufacture and accordingly clearance of Motor Spirit blender with Ethanol is liable to Excise Duty. Accordingly, Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,72,06,302/- under Section 11A along with interest with equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 for the period 1.7.2004 to 7.8.2004. 2. Therefore, the present appeal Sh. Vipin ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sive of 30.6.2004. Between 1.7.2004 and 3.8.2004, there was no exemption for EBMS. The same was restored on 4.8.2004 vide Notification No. 38/2004-CE, 39/2004-CE and 40/2004-CE all dated 4.8.2004. Accordingly, during the period 1.7.2004 to 3.8.2004 the appellant was paying the applicable Excise Duties on EBMS on its value at the time of clearance. On 20.11.2006, the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 issued a Notification No.25/2006-CE (NT) dated 20.11.2006 whereby it exempted 5% Ethanol blended petrol for the period from 1.7.2004 to 3.8.2004 subject to the condition that appropriate duties of Excise were paid on 95% Motor Spirit and 5% Ethanol used in the blended motor spirit. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t to manufacture. Since even after addition, Motor spirit continues to be used as motor spirit. The ratio of the judgment squarely applies in the facts of the present case. 5. Without prejudice he also submits that the appellant has during the relevant period paid duty on the last stage of value addition. It has always been the appellants policy to collect duty on the last stage following the "later the better" principle. In such a situation demand of duty at an intermediate stage of production is not sustainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the judgment reported at C.C.E. V/s. Andhra Pradesh Straw Board Mills 1991 (53) ELT 15 (T) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court and reported at 1997 (89) ELT A37 (SC). 6. Sh. T.G. Rath....