TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are that the appellants are registered with Central Excise for manufacture of sugar, molasses, ethyl alcohol, fusel oil and denatured spirit falling under Chapter subheading 1701 1190, 1703 1000, 2207 2000, 3824 9090 and 2207 2000 respectively of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They also manufacture non-excisable goods viz., Rectified Spirit and Neutral Spirit. During the period April 2008 to March 2010, they had utilised 45,500 MTs of Molasses manufactured for Captive consumption, on which they had claimed the exemption from payment of duty under Notification No.67/1995-CE dated 16.03.1995 as amended. They had paid a total duty amount of Rs.2,57,62,875/- (for the period April 2008 to March 2009) and Rs.3,51,48,750/- (for the period April ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot been submitted. 4.1 He has submitted that the said reversal is not in compliance of Rule 6 read with proviso to Notification No.67/95- CE dated 16.3.1995. In the Final Order No.964/2007 dated 21.8.2007 in the case of Shri Chamundeswari Sugar Ltd., the Tribunal observed that the appeal is allowed subject to the condition that the appellant reverses the input credit attributable to inputs used in the manufacture of molasses which in turn was used in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit/Neutral Alcohol. It is clear that they had reversed the credit attributable to inputs used in the manufacture of molasses and not the credit attributable to inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product. Further, he has submitted that any interp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aptive consumption benefit which is eligible for the quantity of molasses used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and required to pay appropriate duty on the quantity of molasses used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Since the appellant has not complied with the provisions, therefore, their refunds have been rightly rejected. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The short issue involved in the present appeal for consideration is: whether the appellants are eligible to refund of excise duty paid during April 2008 to March 2010 on by-product molasses, on its captive consumption (being exempted under Notification No. 67/95CE dated 16.3.1995, as amended) for the manufacture of exempted final products viz., Rectified Spir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tariff Act (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the said First Schedule)" (ii) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (v) .... (vi) .... (vii) ... the manufacturer shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs and input services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of such final products at the time of their clearance from the factory; 10. The said condition has been interpreted by the Tribunal in Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) case, it has been observed that: "7.1 In respect of M/s. Godavari Sugars Ltd., the appellants pay Central Excise duty on the molasses cleared to their Distillery Unit avail the credit on the same for manuf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcisable. Therefore, the Notification benefit cannot be available. This is the main contention of the Revenue for denying the benefit of Notification to molasses captively consumed. However, it is the appellant's contention that the molasses is not completely used for the production of exempted/non-dutiable product because a part of Rectified Spirit is converted to Denatured Spirit, which is dutiable. Our attention was invited to amendment to Notification No. 67/95-C.E. by Notification No. 31/2001-C.E. dated 1-1-2001. In terms of the said amendment, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of exemption Notification in a situation where there is manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final products, provided the manufacturer discharges....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Therefore, the demand of duty in respect of the credit taken on molasses is not correct." 11. The said judgment has been later followed by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Chamundeswari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE vide Final Order No.964/2007 dated 21.08.2007. Also recently, this Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No.20879-20886/2023 dated 25.08.2023 had followed the ratio laid down in the above case. 12. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue has vehemently argued that the appellant has not correctly complied with the condition laid down in Rule 6(3)(a)(i) of the CCR, 2004, in as much as, the appellant are required to discharge duty on the intermediate product, in the event, the same is used i....