Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy on 12 May, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/00821 to 825/2003
[Arising out of Orders-in- Nos.295 to 299/2003 (SCN) TRY-II, dated 17.06.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Trichirapalli]
M/s.KOTHARI SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD.,
APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY
RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri P.C. Anand, Cons.
For the Respondent Shri R. Chandrasekaran, AC (AR) CORAM:
Honbe Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Date of hearing/decision 12-05-2016 FINAL ORDER NOs. 40810-40814 / 2016 Per D.N. Panda:
Appellants precise case as explained is that it is a manufacturer of sugar and while manufacturing such product, molasses comes out as its by-product. Such molasses when processed, ethyl alcohol is the outcome thereof. Such ethyl alcohol is either cleared as a portable alcohol, which is not excisable or industrial alcohol, which is liable to duty at the rate of 18% at the relevant point of time. Appellant has discharged duty on the molasses used in manufacture of ethyl alcohol. Such duty paid molasses, while being processed for ethyl alcohol, the industrial alcohol that came out has suffered duty. Therefore, prayer of the appellant is that the output (industrial alcohol) which has suffered duty should be set off against the input duty paid on molasses. When such a set off is made, refund arises. This mathematical process was appreciated by adjudicating authority but learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate, for which, the refund arose in terms of the adjudication orders has been denied. Prayer of the appellant is therefore to grant such refund since that is outcome of law allowing the cascading effect.
2. Revenue supports the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Perusal of the adjudication order as well as appellate order does not at all throw light on the factual aspect as that has been argued by the appellant. Rather, learned Commissioner confused without going into detail as to whether the molasses suffering duty has given rise to the dutiable product called industrial alcohol and non-dutiable product called portable alcohol and whether the industrial alcohol has suffered duty. For the misconception of the fact by the appellate authority, justice is to be advanced to the appellant since the facts are as narrated above remained disputed by Revenue.
4. In view of the established fact as argued by appellant and also appreciating the jurisprudence of cascading effect appellant is entitled to refund to the extent the refund flows upon adjustment of duty paid on molasses used for manufacture of dutiable output and duty therein paid. In the result, all the five appeals are allowed and refund is to be allowed by Adjudicating authority in accordance with law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(V. PADMANABHAN) (D.N. PANDA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr
13-05-2016
DRAFT
Remarks
I
II
III
Date of dictation
12.05.2016
Draft Order - Date of typing
13.05.2016
Fair Order Typing
.05.2016
Date of number and date of dispatch
05.2016
5
E/1143/2004