Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S United Spirits Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. E/86717/15 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 14/CEX/COMMR/2015 dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad). For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s United Spirits Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent Appearance: Shri Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 10.05.2016 Date of Decision: 10.05.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 14/CEX/COMMR/2015 dated 30.4.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Aurangabad. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is whether the malt extract, which arises during the course of manufacturing of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), is liable to pay the duty as it is an excisable commodity falling under Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
4. After detailed investigation, it was noticed by the lower authorities that the appellant being manufacturer of IMFL is doing so by processing Malt, which is a major raw material; malt is germinated with cereal grain and it is soaked in water and then halted from germinating further by drying with hot air. Statements of various persons were recorded. The show-cause notice which sought to demand duty from the appellant was based upon also one of the grounds that such malt extracted is a marketable commodity and was marketed by various companies during the relevant period. The said show-cause notice was contested by the appellant on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties.
5. Learned Counsel correctly points out that identical issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Ltd. & SKOL Breweries Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 171 (Tri-Mum) and produces a copy of the judgment as also in the departments appeal as in Appeal No. E/3244/2001 which was disposed of vide Order No. A/192-193/2010 dated 15.6.2010, wherein relying upon the judgment of Mohan Rocky Springwater & SKOL Breweries (supra), the Tribunal held that the malt extract are WORT, which is not an marketable commodity, hence no duty demand can be raised.
6. Learned AR appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that the issues involved in the instant case and in the case of Mohan Rocky Springwater & SKOL Breweries (supra) are same.
7. Since the issue involved is same, we respectfully following our own judgment, hold that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
(Raju) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
2
Appeal No. E/86717/15