TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the course of manufacture of sugar, molasses emerges as a byproduct. Molasses is captively consumed in the manufacture of dutiable products like Ethyl Alcohol, Ethanol, denatured spirit and exempted products like rectified spirit etc. In the course of the manufacture of rectified spirit, carbon dioxide also emerges which is also liable to duty. The appellants used to sell molasses on payment of duty as and when there is demand of those. However, for the molasses captively used for further manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol, Ethanol, Rectified Spirit, ENA, Denatured spirit etc., the appellants were availing the benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 13.06.1995 as amended, which grants exemption from payment of duty on intermediary produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest u/s 11AB of CEA, 1944 As applicable Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of 2618 MT of Molasses valued at Rs. 1,17,81,000/- u/s 34 of the CEA, 1944 20,00,000/- Penalty u/r 25(1) of the Central Rules 2002 10,00,000/- NSL Sugars Ltd. Appeal Nos E/20449/2016 E/20450/2016 E/21826/2016 Period of Dispute April 2014 to July 2014 August 2014 to March 2015 April 2015 to Nov 2015 Date of Show Cause Notice 21.01.2015 04.08.2015 28.4.2016 Date of Order-in-Original 23.12.2015/ 04.01.2016 23.12.2015/ 04.01.2016 31.10.2016 Demand of Central Excise duty u/s 11A(1) of CEA, 1944 Rs.84,97,500/- Rs.2,26,76,250/- Rs.2,28,75,000/- Interest u/s 11AA of the CEA, 1944 As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Comm. of C.Ex., Trichy-2010 (262) ELT 545 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was held as follows: "5. From the appeal memorandum, we find that the appellants have taken another plea that the impugned goods are not excisable at all. They have also taken the plea that the benefit of Notification No. 67/95 cannot be denied as the department has not shown that the rectified spirit cleared by the appellants is a dutiable excisable goods and is either exempted or carries nil rate of duty. We find this line of argument attractive as prima facie undenatured ethyl alcohol is outside the scope of the central excise levy. For the purpose of the main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit of duty availed on the chemicals and other inputs along with duty of credit availed on various input services used in the manufacture of 'Molasses', which is incidentally a by-product of 'Sugar'. The appellant have placed statement showing the details of such reversals, which will clearly indicate that there is no ambiguity in the said reversals. The appellant have submitted ER1 Returns, filled electronically from time to time wherein these details have been duly incorporated. In this reference, the attention of the Hon'ble Tribunal is invited to the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Manakpur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE-2017 (6) GSTL 188 (T) and also referred the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bannari Amman Sugars Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... covered denatured ethyl alcohol of any strength and chapter sub-heading No. 2204.90 covered ethyl alcohol except alcoholic liquor for human consumption and undenatured ethyl alcohol. From 1-3-2005 tariff item No. 2207 20 00 covered ethyl alcohol and other spirits denatured of any strength. This led the Central Excise authorities to think that pre-denatured ethyl alcohol does not find place in Central Excise Tariff. We find that the show cause notice contends that rectified spirit is manufactured in between the process to manufacture denatured spirit and rectified spirit does not find place in Central Excise Tariff with effect from 1-3-2005 and therefore Cenvat credit is not admissible as inputs & input services and capital goods going into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant." 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the findings in the matter of M/s Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.EX, Trichy reported as 2010 (262) E.L.T. 545 (Tri.-Chennai), as also in the case of M/s Mankapur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.EX. & S.T., Lucknow reported as 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 188 (Tri.-All.) and in the case of M/s Bannari Amman Sugar Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Cus., C.Ex. & S.T., Mysore reported as 2018 (362) E.L.T. 705 (Tri.-Bang.), which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax Vs. Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd reported in 2022 (379) E.L.T. 556 (S.C.). Further, in the case of appellant M/s Chamundeshwari Sugars Ltd. the iss....