TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant by upholding the Order-in-Original dated 16.06.2019. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd are engaged in the manufacture of various malt-based food products classifiable under Chapter Heading 1901 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant were duly availing CENVAT Credit on inputs, input services and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of such dutiable final products. During the manufacturing process, malted barley grains are crushed, processed with wheat flour and thereafter subjected to filtration. In course of such process, ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal dated 16.06.2019 confirmed the demand as proposed in the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal, has upheld the said Order-in-Original and has rejected Appellant's appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts & the law and the binding judicial precedents on the identical issue. 4.1 She further submits that the barely husk is not a manufactured final product but merely a residue/waste/by-pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has no application. In this regard, she places reliance on the following case-laws: * M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd and Max Builders vs. CCE & ST - 2024 (2) TMI 614-CESTAT Chandigarh * Commissioner of CGST & CE, Vadodara vs. M/s Shree Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Limited - 2026 (6) TMI 896-CESTAT Ahmedabad * M/s Kaushal Ferro Metals (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Rourkela - 2026 (3) TMI 904-CESTAT Kolkata * JSW Steels Pvt Ltd vs. Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai - 2025 (6) TMI 757-CESTAT Mumbai 4.3 She further submits that the department has placed reliance upon Circular No. 904/29/2009-CX dated 28.10.2009, but the said circular was withdrawn by Board vide Circular No. 1027/15/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emicals Allied Industries and Suresh Goyal vs. Commissioner of CE & CGST, Rohtak - 2024 (8) TMI 309-CESTAT Chandigarh * M/s Bengal Energy Ltd vs. Commr of CGST & Central Excise, Haldia (Vice-Versa) - 2025 (7) TMI 1534CESTAT Kolkata * M/s Madhucon Sugar & Power Industries Ltd vs. Pr. Commissioner of Central Tax, Rangareddy-GST, Hyderabad - 2026 (5) TMI 638-CESTAT Hyderabad 4.6 She also submits that the issue has also been settled by the Departmental Authorities in favour of the Appellant in respect of their other manufacturing units, namely Nabha unit, Rajahmundry unit and Sonepat unit and the department has not challenged the said orders, which have attained finality. 4.7 She also questions the invocation of extended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a) and the subsequently, various benches of the Tribunal have followed the ratio of the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases as cited above. 8. We may refer to the decision of the Chandigarh Bench in the case of Commissioner of CE & ST, Gurgaon-I vs. M/s Barmalt Malting India Private Limited (supra), wherein the identical issue was involved and the Tribunal, after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd, has held as under: "6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the issue involved in the present case is whether the impugned products namely wet bhoosi, chilka, dundli, malt sprouts etc are liable to excise du....