Cce, Jaipur I vs M/S Unistar Polymers

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 18 (MPM)/CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 13/01/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

CCE, Jaipur  I Appellant

Versus

M/s Unistar Polymers Respondent

Appearance

Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the appellant.

None  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52271/2015 Dated : 17/07/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

The Department is in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 13/01/2006. The short point of dispute is whether or not the assessee is eligible for concession under Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 02/06/1998. The brief facts of the case are that respondent are manufacturer of plates, sheets, films and strips of plastics. There were eligible concessional rate of excise duty under Notification 9/98-CE. As the condition of exercising option has not been fulfilled, proceedings for denying concession were initiated against respondent and order dated 14/12/2000 was passed confirming demand with penalty. On appeal the demand was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Further appeal preferred before Tribunal resulted in remand proceedings as ordered by Tribunal vide order dated 30/10/2002. The original authority vide order dated 12/05/2004 held the respondent eligible for concessional rate of duty as per Notification 9/98-CE. On appeal filed by Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the said order. The Department is before us against said order Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13/01/2006.

2. The learned AR contended that when the respondent paid full rate of duty even after filing classification declaration under Rule 173B claiming concessional rate of duty, the declaration becomes effectively superseded. That is the only ground to state against the impugned order. None appeared for respondent.

3. We considered the submissions by learned AR and examined appeal records. The concessional rate of duty as per Notification No. 9/98-CE dated 02/06/98 has been undisputedly claimed by the respondent in their classification declaration effective from 01/7/98. The respondent paying full rate thereafter by itself cannot be considered as an act which will make the earlier declaration legally ineffective as argued by Department. No such presumption can be made without legal basis.

4. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as without merit.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

2