Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Trichy Distilleries And Chemicals Ltd vs Tiruchirapalli Ce&St on 17 March, 2023

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        CHENNAI

                       REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. III

                      EXCISE APPEAL No. 497 of 2012
  (Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 193/2012 dt. 30.08.2012 passed by Commissioner
  of Customs &Central Excise(Appeals) No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli-
  620 001.)


  M/s. Trichy Distilleries & Chemicals Ltd.,                         : Appellant
  Senthanneerpuram,
  Trichy - 602004.

                                       VERSUS


  The Commissioner of GST &Central Excise,                           : Respondent
  No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
  Tiruchirappalli-620 001



   APPEARANCE:
   Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant
   For the Appellant

   Shri. R. Rajaraman, Assistant Commissioner (A.R)
   For the Respondent


   CORAM:
   HON'BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
   HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

                      FINAL ORDER NO. 40181 / 2023


                                  DATE OF HEARING:           16.02.2023

                             DATE OF DECISION:               17.03.2023


      Per: Mrs. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.


              Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in

      the manufacture of Industrial Alcohol and Chemicals and

      is availing the facility of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid

      on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on input
                                    2

                                             Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



services. The appellant was also clearing 'Extra Neutral

Alcohol' which is potable and non-excisable. The main

input for ENA is molasses which is procured from outside.

The appellant vide letter dated 24.11.2009 had informed

the Jurisdictional Range Officer that they are planning to

produce ENA out of molasses procured from outside and

that they are storing it separately and not availing Credit

of duty paid on molasses as ENA is non-excisable. A part

of ENA (8 to 15%) which was impure was not cleared but

denatured.This denatured sprit (DNS) was consumed

captivity for the manufacture of Acetaldehyde. Appellant

did not pay duty on DNS in terms of notification no.

67/95-CE    dated   16.03.1995         as   DNS   was     captively

consumed. The department was of the view that, the

appellant is not eligible for input Credit in respect of DNS

which is the input for manufacture of Acetaldehyde as no

duty was paid on DNS. It was also noticed that appellant

was availing Credit on 'molasses' consumed in DNS which

was being captively consumed for manufacture of dutiable

products (Acetaldehyde). The           appellant was availing

Credit on molasses, at the time of captive consumption of

DNS by backward calculation of content of molasses in

DNS.   Though    the   appellant       procured     molasses       on

payment of duty, they had no prescribed duty paying

documents for the duty paid on DNS and was availing

Credit on the basis of the calculation sheet.
                                 3

                                        Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



Further according to department the input for dutiable

products was DNS whereas Credit availed is on molasses

content in the DNS captively consumed which is not

eligible. It appeared to department that appellant was

availing credit on molasses which is exclusively used in

manufacture of non-excisable ENA which is irregular as

per explanation II to Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.

Further that, molasses received for manufacture of non-

excisable ENA cannot be treated as inputs. SCN was

issued proposing to recover the ineligible Credit along

with interest and for imposing penalties. After due process

of law, the original authority confirmed the demand,

interest and imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by such

order the appellant is now before the Tribunal.



2.   The ld. Consultant Shri. P.C. Anand appeared and

argued for the appellant. The products manufactured and

cleared by the appellants are ethyl alcohol, acetaldehyde,

acetic acid, etc. The main input is molasses. The appellant

did not avail CENVAT Credit on the quantity of molasses

used in production of potable ethyl alcohol (ENA) as this

product is not dutiable product. This ENA which was not

pure, was denatured, and used in further manufacturing

process, resulting in dutiable finished products vig:

acetaldehyde. The appellant is eligible to avail Credit on

inputs used for manufacture of dutiable product. Instead
                                  4

                                         Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



of resorting to keeping separate accounts for the Credit

availed on exempted and dutiable products the appellant

has calculated the quantity of inputs used for dutiable

products and thus availed CENVAT Credit only in regard to

inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable products. The

appellant has thus availed only eligible Credit.



3. The Ld. Consultant submitted that the molasses used

in the production of DNS is duty paid molasses which fact

is not disputed. Every step of the process by which both

ENA and DNS are produced is documented and tightly

regulated and there is even a staff of the Excise

department who is present at all times in the factory. The

portion of the duty paid molasses contained in the DNS

which is captively consumed for manufacture of industrial

chemicals is clearly quantified and only credit in relation

thereto is taken in the CENVAT register maintained by the

appellant.



4. The main allegation of the department is that molasses

is used for manufacture of ENA which is non-excisable.

The ld. Consultant submitted that this issue as to whether

Credit is admissible on molasses used for manufacture of

dutiable final products when ethyl alcohol is produced in

the first stage which is non-excisable is no longer

res integra and settled by the decision of the Tribunal in
                                  5

                                         Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



the case of Rajshree Sugar & Chemical Ltd. 2016(343)

ELT 462 (Tri-Che.). The said decision was upheld by the

Apex Court as reported in 2017(345) ELT A30 (S.C.). The

decision in the case of Shree Ambika Sugar Ltd 2017

(343) ELT 462 (Tri-Che.) has also analysed similar issue.

This decision was also upheld as reported in 2017(345)

ETA 33(S.C.). The decision in the case of Dharani Sugars

[2016 (343) ELT 462 (Tri.-Che.) was also relied. It is

submitted that the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex

Court as reported in 2017(345) ELT A69 (S.C.). The Ld.

Consultant prayed that the appeal may be allowed.



5. The Ld. AR Shri R. Rajaraman supported the findings in

the impugned order.



6. Heard both sides.



7. The issue to be decided is whether CENVAT Credit

availed on the molasses is eligible or not. The department

is of the view that molasses is used for manufacture of

ENA which is non-excisable and therefore the credit is not

eligible. The case of the department is clear from para 48

where the original authority has observed as under:

          " The contention of the assesse is not
          correct since a harmonious reading of
          Explanation III to Rule 6 of CCR with
          Rule 2 (k) of CCR and Section 2(I) of the
          CEA 1944 would lead to the conclusion
          that the premises where non-excisable
                                  6

                                          Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



         „ENA‟ is manufactured cannot fall under
         the definition of factory and hence the
         molasses received for the manufacture
         of non-excisable „ENA‟ cannot be treated
         as inputs „abinitio‟. Hence it is crystal
         clear that in this issue molasses is not an
         input at all as per CCR 2004. Even if it is
         taken as input in academic interest the
         credit on the same cannot be allowed
         since it is exclusively used in the
         manufacture of non-excisable „ENA‟ on
         which no duty is payable. Further even if
         the 15% impure „ENA" is denatured also
         the credit on molasses is not eligible
         since this denatured alcohol is exempted
         since captively consumed."

8. In para 4.2 the Commissioner (Appeals) held as under:



         "The appellants have taken the credit on
         the duty portion of molasses which are
         used for the manufacture of DNS,
         whereas      the    actual    input     for
         manufacture of DNS is extra neutral
         alcohol (ENA), which itself is a product,
         which are separately taken out and kept
         in storage tank. Only 8% to 15% of
         extra neutral alcohol (ENA) is being used
         for further manufacturing of denature
         sprit (DNS) and rest quantity is cleared
         for bottling purpose under State excise
         control. Therefore credit taken on
         molasses is not correct to the extent of
         the molasses is used for manufacture of
         extra neutral alcohol (ENA), which itself
         a product and non excisable. The extra
         neutral alcohol (ENA) is under the state
         excise control. Therefore as pre Rule 6 of
         Cenvat credit rules, 2004, the appellants
         are not eligible to take credit on the
         Molasses, which is exclusively used for
         the manufacture of ENA Hence the
         question of using Cenvat credit of
         molasses for the conversion of DNS
         portion, which is obtained from ENA (non
         excisable product), does not arise. Hence
         it is clear that in this case molasses is
         not an input at all as per CCR 2004, for
         the manufacture of their final products
         acetaldehyde and acetic acid. Only DNS,
         which     is  excisable    used   in   the
         manufacture of acetaldehyde and acetic
         acid and the appellants cannot take
         credit on the invoices related to the
                                      7

                                             Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



            purchase of molasses The appellants
            have     adopted    reverse     mechanisin
            formula to ascertain the quantity of
            molasses used for the manufacture of
            denature sprit (DNS) suo-moto, which is
            not prescribed under Cenvat credit
            Rules, 2004 or under any of statutes.
            Hence the appellants are not eligible to
            take    proportionate    credit  on   the
            molasses which are consumed in the
            manufacture      of   DNS     The   other
            arguments and case laws put forth by
            the appellants do not come for rescue as
            they are rio relevance to this issue. In
            view of the above the order of the lower
            authority   does     not    warrant   any
            interference."
                          (emphasis supplied)


9. The appellant did not avail CENVAT Credit of the duty

paid on molasses immediately on receiving the molasses

in the factory. Though they manufactured non-excisable

ENA and also dutiable products viz, acetaldehyde and

acetic acid, they have availed credit only on that part of

molasses which go into manufacture of dutiable product.

Department has no allegation that they have availed

credit on the entire quantity of molasses. The Credit that

is eligible in respect of dutiable products will be known

only when the appellant knows what quantity of alcohol

denatured and how much molasses is used in such

excisable    product     captively       consumed      in    further

manufacture     of   dutiable   products     cleared     from     the

factory. The main allegation is that as ENA is derived at

the first stage which is non-excisable and therefore the

credit availed is not in order.
                                   8

                                           Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB



10. The very same issue was analysed by the Tribunal in

the case of Rajshree Sugar & Chemical Ltd. (Supra).



          "8.1. For the proper appreciation of the
          case, we take up the facts from Appeal
          No. E/41188/2014 in the case of Ms.
          Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. v.
          CCE, Puducherry. The adjudicating
          authority observed that Denatured Ethyl
          Alcohol were dutiable and removed from
          the factory on payment of appropriate
          Excise duty and the non-excisable goods
          i.e. varieties of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol
          including Rectified spirit were removed
          on payment of an amount equivalent to
          6%, on the invoice value in terms of
          Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
          Ethyl Alcohol mainly has an intoxicating
          agent in alcohol-based liquor for human
          consumption. Prior to 1-3-2005 of Tariff
          restructuring from 6 digit to 8 digit
          Heading No. 2204.90 of the CETA covers
          Rectified Spirit and ENA, NIL rate of
          duty. The appellants were eligible to
          avail the Cenvat credit on the molasses
          captively used in the manufacture of
          dutiable and exempted products. The
          appellants reversed the amount under
          Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
          at the time of clearance of the exempted
          Denatured      Ethyl   Alcohol    including
          Rectified spirit. According to Revenue,
          after restructuring of the Tariff from 6
          digit to 8 digit, Denatured Ethyl Alcohol
          would     become      non-excisable     and
          therefore the appellants are not eligible
          to avail the benefit of the exemption
          Notification No. 67/95-C.E. (supra) in
          respect of molasses used in the
          manufacture of Denatured Ethyl Alcohol
          including Rectified spirit.
          .

8.12 It is seen from the above, that after re-structuring of Central Excise Tariff from 6 Digit to 8 Digit with effect from 1-3-2005, Rectified Spirit and ENA are exempted by Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. (supra) and the appellant discharged the obligations under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of clearance of Rectified Spirit and ENA and therefore, denial of exemption Notification No. 67/95-C.E. 9 Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB (supra) on Molasses captively consumed in Rectified Spirit and ENA cannot be sustained. Accordingly, denial of Cenvat credit on the Molasses purchased from other sugar mill used in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit and ENA are also liable to be set aside. We have also noted that inputs and input service are not exclusively used for generation of electricity and therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied."

(emphasis supplied) The above decision of the Hon'ble Apex court as reported in 2017(345) ELT A30 (S.C.).

11. In the case of M/s. Shri Ambika Sugar Ltd. (supra) similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in 2017(345)ELT A33(S.C). In the case of Commissioner Vs. M/s. Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

2017 (345) ELT A69 (S.C.) it was held that the credit cannot be denied. It was also decided that appellants are eligible for benefits of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. In Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Belagaum 2007 (212) ELT 234) (Tri-Bang.) it was held that it is sufficient if CENVAT Credit attributable to inputs in exempted product is reversed or paid.

12. In case on hand, though the appellants have resorted to different method, it is clear that the appellants have not availed CENVAT Credit on inputs in respect of exempted products or non-excisable ENA. Following the 10 Appeal. No.: E/497/2012-DB proposition laid in the above decisions we hold that the demand cannot sustain. The impugned order is set aside.

13. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2023) sd (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) sd (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Rkp