Cce, Jallandhar vs M/S Jct Limited

[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 355/CE/CHD/2005 dated 30/09/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, 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 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, Jallandhar Appellant

Versus

M/s JCT Limited Respondent

and vice-versa

Appearance

Shri Pramod Kumar, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR)  for the Appellant.

Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate  for the Respondent.

CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No. 50083-50085/2015 Dated : 08/01/2015

Per. Rakesh Kumar :-

The respondent in the appeal No. E/3531 of 2005 and 2681 of 2007 and the appellant in the appeal No. 530 of 2009 are composite textile mill engaged in the manufacture of spun yarn and weaving of the fabrics and its processing in the same factory. The appellant paid duty on the yarn on the quantity at the spindle stage. Subsequent to clearance of the yarn for captive consumption for weaving, the yarn was subjected to the processes of doubling/multi folding, sizing and singeing before being used for weaving of the fabrics. The point of dispute is as to whether the cost of the processes to which the yarn was subjected after the spindle stage before use for weaving would be includible in the assessable value of the yarn. In the appeal No. E/3531 of 2005 and E/2681 of 2007, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand of duty on the value of the processes of doubling/multi folding, sizing and singeing for the period 2001-2002 and in the appeal No. E/530 of 2009, the assessee had filed a refund of duty paid on the above-mentioned processes but the refund claim was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of bar of unjust enrichment.

2. Heard both the sides.

3. Both the sides agree that the basic issue involved in these three appeals stand decided in the Assessees favour by the judgment dated 23/07/14 in their own case reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 176 (Tri.  Del.), wherein the Tribunal has held that when the duty on the yarn manufactured was being paid on the quantity at the spindle stage and it is the quantity at the spindle stage which was accounted for in the RG-1 register, the value of the process of doubling/multi folding, sizing and singeing, which are undertaken after spindle stage and after the clearance of the yarn for captive consumption would not be includible in the value of the assessable yarn. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal No. E/3531 of 2005 and 2681 of 2007 and, hence, the same are dismissed.

4. As regards the appeal No. E/530 of 2009 against the Commissioner (Appeals)s order rejecting the refund claim, since the issue on merits stands decided in the Assessees favour the only question which remains to be decided is as to whether the refund would be hit by the bar of unjust enrichment and in respect of this dispute, the appellants plea is that they have records on the basis of which they can prove that the incidence of duty whose refund is sought, had been borne by them. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for examining the refund claim in respect of bar of unjust enrichment after considering the appellants plea and the records produced by them. The appeal No. E/530/2009 stands disposed of, as above.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court.)

(Rakesh Kumar)

Member (Technical)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

PK

??

??

??

??

4