C.C.E. Indore vs Shri M.S. Negi, Dr For The

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. IND/I/165/2006 dated 27.04.2006 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Indore].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s. Kriti Industries (I) Ltd. .Respondent

Vs.

C.C.E. Indore .Appellants

Appearance:

Shri Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 10.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52258/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of plastic pipes accessories falling under chapter 39 of Sprinkler System falling under chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant has cleared HDPE Sprinkler system and parts thereof at nil rate of duty claiming that the said goods falling under CTH 8424.10 and not liable to pay duty thereon but clearing HDEP pipes on payment of duty. Since the appellant is using HDEP pipe for manufacture of Sprinkler system and not maintaining separate Cenvat Credit Account for inputs as per provision of Rule 6(3)(B) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand an amount equal to 10% of the price of sprinkler system cleared by them from their factory. In these set of facts, proceedings were initiated and demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said orders appellant is before us.

3. Heard the parties.

4. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is that as appellant is paying amount equal to 10% of the value of HDEP pipes which have gone in the manufacture of sprinkler system, they are not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of Sprinkler system in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in their own case vide final order No.50576/2014-SMB dated 10.02.2014.

5. The Ld. Counsel reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

6. We have gone through the decision relied upon by the Ld. Counsel in their own case wherein it has been held that when appellant is paying 10% of the value of HDEP pipes used for manufacturing of sprinkler system, the appellant is not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of sprinkler system. Therefore, we hold that appellant is not required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the value of sprinkle system as they have paid 10% of the amount of HDEP pipes used in the manufacture of sprinkle system.

7. With these terms, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

E/3314/2006-EX(DB)