Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2935

Whether mixing of denatured elements in rectified spirit amounts to manufacture?

Case:-COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., BELGAUM VERSUS VISHWANATH SUGARS LTD.
 
Citation:- 2015 (325) E.L.T. 588 (Kar.)
 
Brief Facts:-This appeal is by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax questioning the order of the Appellate Tribunal in No. Excise 574/2005, dated 3-8-2009 [2010 (250) E.L.T. 390 (Tri. - Bang.)] reversing the Order-in-Original No. 12/2005, dated 22-3-2005.The respondent-assessee had availed the benefit under Cenvat credit for Rs. 2,28,85,316/- for the year 2001-02 under Rule 12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Original Authority disputed the manufacturing process of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, on the ground that the assessee all along manufactured only the rectified spirit. The assessee has not manufactured Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the distillery. The Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was not manufactured in the assessee’s distillery and same is converted merely by manual adding denatured elements, that process of mixing of the denatured elements in rectified spirit is actually done in the tanker and hence the assessee cannot be treated as engaged in the manufacturing of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol.
The Original Authority by its order in original dated 23-3-2005 held that the assessee is not entitled for Cenvat Credit Scheme and he is liable to pay the balance credit of Rs. 83,56,155/-, which benefit he had availed on the basis that he had manufactured the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol in the distillery. On the basis of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee dated 25-10-2004 and demand was confirmed.
The assessee who was aggrieved by the Original Order, filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. Excise/574/2005.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement:-The Appellate Tribunal found that the manufacturing Denatured Ethyl Alcohol was done by mixing the toxin. This process amounts to manufacturing of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. However, the assessee’s case is that the toxin is mixed in the tank and during transportation the process of manufacturing gets completed. This process is accepted earlier, and it is a accepted practice. Till 2002, the benefit under the Cenvat Scheme is granted. Accordingly the assessee has followed the procedure applicable to the manufacturer and has been availing the Cenvat credit. It is not in dispute that what is produced is the Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. It is also not in dispute that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and the process of manufacturing was complete. The dispute with regard to whether it was done within the distillery or not. But there is no evidence to show that the mixing is done outside the distillery. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show that the manufacturing process was outside the distillery and in fact in the original assessment it is stated that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and in the process of transportation it has become Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. Hence it is shown that Denatured Ethyl Alcohol is manufactured, as such the said manufactured product is exempted under the Cenvat Scheme, which benefit has been availed by the assessee and said practice was accepted by the authority and the benefit had been extended. They do not find any error in the order of Appellate Tribunal. Hence there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
 
Decision:-Appeal dismissed.
 
Comment:- The crux of the case is that the manual mixing of denatured toxin in Ethyl Alcohol in tankers would amounts to manufacture of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol, as process of manufacture is completed with this mixtureduring transportation only and as in the given case no evidence has been produced regarding the fact that the mixing was done outside factory/distillery. Therefore the said activity was treated as to be produced within the distillery and amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of Central excise act and henceforth the assessee is eligible to avail the cenvat credit.
 
Prepared By:- Neelam Jain
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com