Cce, Jaipur Ii vs M/S Perfect Thread Mills Limited

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 33 (HKS)/CE/JPR-II/ 2006 dated 06/01/2006 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs & 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  II Appellant

Versus

M/s Perfect Thread Mills Limited Respondent

Appearance

Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the appellant.

Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52812/2015 Dated : 07/09/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

The present appeal by the Revenue is against the appellate order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Sewing Thread. They filed a refund claim for Rs. 24,46,214/- of duty paid during the period from 01/12/1995 to 21/07/1996 on the ground that the processes carried out by them in the production of Sewing Thread does not amount to manufacture. The claim was rejected by the Original Authority on the ground that vide order-in-original dated 13/07/1995 it was held that Polyester Sewing Thread were liable to excise duty. On appeal the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the Assistant Commissioner in his denovo order-in-original No. 171/2003 dated 03/06/2003 held that the processes carried out by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the very basis of rejection of refund claim is no more relevant. He remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for deciding the case afresh. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeal.

2. In the appeal it has been pleaded that the remand order was erroneous as the process carried out by the assessee amounted to manufacture and the goods were liable to duty.

3. During the oral arguments it was brought to our notice that against the order-in-original dated 03/06/2003 the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order dated 03/02/2006 held that the Sewing Thread manufactured by the respondent are liable to Central Excise duty as they have emerged after a process of manufacture, having distinct name, character and use as compared to the yarn which is used in the manufacture. Against the said order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal in appeal No. E/2119/2006  EX (DB). The said appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04/09/2015. Considering that the duty liability of Sewing Thread has been upheld against the respondent in the above-mentioned case, the question of refund on that ground is not sustainable. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal by the Revenue.

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

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

2