Chandigarh vs M/S Nekon Industries

[Arising out of OIA No.281/CE/CHD/2006, dt.31.03.2026, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Chandigarh Appellant

Vs

M/s Nekon Industries Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant : Shri A.K. Singh, Authorised Representative

For Respondent: None

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

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 Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.01.2015

Final Order No.51104/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). None appeared on behalf of the respondent. There is no request for adjournment.

2. After hearing the ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Plastic Moulded Parts, classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dt.24.08.2005 was issued, proposing demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.20,05,590.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty, on the ground that the Respondents cleared their capital goods i.e. Plant & Machinery on 16.09.2004, 09.11.2004, and 18.11.2004 on payment of Central Excise duty of Rs.10,18,467.00, where they availed/utilized CENVAT Credit on such capital goods of Rs.30,24,05.00. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty and also appropriated the amount paid by them. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed the appeal in so far as the amount of duty deposited by the Respondents of Rs.10,20,723.00 at the time of clearance of old and used capital goods in question, but, they have deposited further sum of Rs.17,82,180.00 on 24.01.2005 and they have not contested the refund of duty. Hence, duty already deposited by the appellant is confirmed and balance amount of duty and penalty imposed and interest demanded were set aside.

3. We find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Hyderabad-III Vs Navodhaya Plastic Industries Ltd  2013 (298) ELT 541 (Tri-LB), following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of Rogini Mills Ltd  2011 (264) ELT 467 (Mad.) held that the assessee is liable to pay the amount as per depreciation.

4. In view of that, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Adjudicating authority to decide the matter after considering the Larger Bench decision. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the Respondent, before passing of the order.

5. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2