ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant manufactures acetic acid from molasses which it obtained from a sugar factory. In the process of manufacture of acetic acid from molasses ethyl alcohol comes into existence. Appellant took credit under Rule 57G of the duty paid on the molasses and applied it towards payment of duty on the acetic acid. Duty was not paid on the ethyl alcohol in terms of notification. On 1-3-1989 under a notification issued under Rule 57K, ethyl alcohol was nofified as an input in the manufacture of inter alia acetic acid and money credit to the extent of Rs. 520/-per kilo litre of ethyl alcohol used in the manufacture of acetic acid not eligible to be used towards payment of duty on that final product. From 1-9-1989 appellant commenced availing of the provisions of this notification. From that date onwards it stopped taking credit of the duty paid on molasses under Rule 57G.
2. Notice was issued proposing recovery of the credit taken on so much of molasses as was used in the manufacture of ethyl alcohol on stock on 1-9-1989 on the ground that they were availing both the scheme of Modvat and Money credit simultaneously which was not permissible. The Assistant Collector did not accept the assessee’s contention and confirmed the demand. Collector (Appeals) confirmed his order. Hence this appeal.
3. The contention of the Advocate for the appellant that, even on the assumption that ethyl alcohol was made out of molasses on which Modvat credit was taken, there is nothing to prevent such an assessee from availing both Modvat credit and money credit has to be accepted.
4. The Collector (Appeals) himself does not deny this to be the case. His reliance on the fact that there was no specific provision in the rule to avail both the provisions at the same time is unacceptable. An assessee may avail of any number of notifications in force at any time as long as there is nothing in the rules or Act or the notification prohibiting it. We also do not find anything in the provision relating to Modvat and money credit scheme to initiate against this cause of action. Each of their deals with very different counts unrelated to each other.
5. The other ground for the denial which the Departmental Representative’s emphasis is that ethyl alcohol in question was not a final product brought into the factory for use as input for manufacture. Rule 57K defines the first two inputs as raw material or finished excisable goods. This requirement is satisfied. There is nothing in the rule relating to money credit that the input in question must necessarily be obtained from outside. The process of manufacture of ethyl alcohol and then acetic acid from molasses were not explained to us and therefore we are not in a position to hold whether ethyl alcohol emerges as a by-product or its manufacture was a deliberate step in the manufacture of acetic acid. However, whichever way one looks at it, the fact remains that ethyl alcohol emerged as a product in the appellant’s factory. Had it been removed from the factory, it would have had to discharge appropriate duty. It is therefore not possible for us to say that this is not an input within the meaning of Rule 57K. It was therefore, an input and credit taken for the use which was validly applied towards payment of duty on the final product. There was nothing illegal or irregular on the course adopted by the appellant.
6. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.