Cce, Jaipur vs M/S. Kamal Coach Works

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.09.2015

Excise Appeal No.2644/2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.145(MPM)CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 28.04.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur]

CCE, Jaipur Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Kamal Coach Works Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Shri R.K. Grover, DR for the appellant.

Rep. by Shri Jay Kishan and Shri Gian Shankar, Advocates for

the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., 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 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?

Coram: Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52987/2015 dated:22.09.2015

Per B. Ravichandran:

This appeal by the Revenue is filed against the order-in-appeal dated 28.04.2006 of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plant and machinery and motor vehicles liable for central excise duty. Proceedings were initiated against them for demanding duty on the goods cleared in contravention of the conditions of notification no.8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003.The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty on the respondent. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order and held that the goods cleared with the brand name Tata which belonged to another person are not be considered for aggregate value to arrive at the exemption limit under notification no.8/2003-CE. He held that the motor vehicle bodies manufactured and cleared with brand name of Tata are covered by para-3 (a) of the notification and as such, the value of these branded goods cleared on payment of full rate of duty is not to be included for determination of aggregate value of first clearance of excisable goods. He also mentioned that the order-in-original was passed without considering the appellants submissions and case law cited in violation of principles of natural justice and on that ground also, the order is not sustainable.

2. In the appeal before us, the Revenue pleaded that for the purpose of determination of first clearance of an aggregate value of Rs.100 lakhs all clearances are to be considered. The goods cleared with the brand name of Tata on payment of full rate of duty are not the goods specified under the said notification. Hence, it was contended that the value of clearance of non-specified goods whether bearing brand name of another person or not even if cleared on payment of duty are to be taken into account to arrive at the aggregate value of Rs.100 Lakhs.

3. During arguments, ld. AAR reiterated the grounds of appeal.

4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent stated that in their own case, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.52331/2015 dated 22.07.2015 held in their favour on similar issue. We find that in the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) categorically held that the value of the branded motor vehicle bodies cleared at full rate of duty is not includible in the value of the clearances to arrive at the aggregate value of first clearance. The clearances of excisable goods other than branded before 24.1.2004 and 28.4.2004 had not crossed the exemption limit of Rs.1 Crores. Hence, he held that demand is not sustainable. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this Tribunals decisions in the cases of 

(A) CCE Vs. Power and Control reported in 1992 (62) ELT 662 (Tri.) (B) CCE, Madras Vs. Space Food Ltd. reported in 2001 (133) ELT 738 (Tribunal-Chennai)

(C) Mewar Bottling Vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2001 (136)ELT 1113(T)

(D) M/s. Crop Care Pesticides Vs.CCE,Chandigarh reported in 2001(137)ELT 895 (Tribunal-Delhi).

5. We find no legal support for the assertion made by the Revenue in their appeal that the goods cleared even on full payment of duty with others brand name has to be included to arrive at the aggregate value. There is no legal basis for such plea. Considering the detailed finding of the ld. Commissioner(Appeals) and this Tribunals decision in various cases, more specifically in the respondents own case mentioned above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

[operative portion of the order already pronounced in the court]

( Sulekha Beevi C.S. )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1