Anutone Acoustics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No 134/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a demand under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules has been confirmed on the appellant's exempted goods, and the appellant has already reversed the CENVAT credit involved in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of those exempted products, confirmation of the demand is not justified, and the appellate authority may not insist on further pre-deposit as a condition for hearing the appeal on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 134/2013 dated 14/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Anutone Acoustics Ltd No.3a, ,sai Nirman, Visneswaraiah Industrial Area, Mahadevapura Post, BANGALORE - 560048 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I Commissionerate, POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate S. RAGHU ADV NO.543, 12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078 For the Appellant
Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 09/01/2015
Date of Decision: 09/01/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Misc. Order & Stay Order No.20164-20165/2015 Final Order No. 20046 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Appreciating the reason for delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal, I condone the same.
2. Further, I find that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs out of the total demand of Rs.7 lakhs approximately. The said demand stands confirmed in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules at the rate of 10% of the value of the final exempted goods.
2. It is seen that the appellant have already reversed the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,76,802/- involved in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. In such a scenario, the confirmation of demand is not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (A) for decision on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. The COD, Stay as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free