Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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