Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Modison Metals Pvt.Ltd

Appeal No.E/640/2008-DB; E/CROSS/33/2008 [Arising out of OIA No.KKS/71/Daman/2008, dt.22.02.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman Appellant

Vs

M/s Modison Metals Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Nair, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, 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 No 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:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 28.09.2015

Order No. A/11359/2015, dt.28.09.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the appeal of the Respondent was partly allowed. The Respondents have filed cross objection being aggrieved with the part of the impugned order against them.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Electrical Parts under Heading No.8538.00 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They received the duty paid returned goods to their factory under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent availed CENVAT Credit and cleared the goods after re-processing on payment of duty.

3. A show cause notice dt.14.07.2006 was issued, proposing the demand of CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,28,467.00 alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the ground that the process was undertaken by them, would not come within the purview of Rule 16 of the said Rules. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT alongwith interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order and the demand of CENVAT Credit of Rs.9,176.00 was only confirmed. Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and respondent filed cross appeal against confirmation of demand of Rs.9,176.00.

4. We find from the impugned order that the Assessee availed the CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,28,467.00 on the rejected goods under Rule 16 of the said Rules. It is stated that after processing, the goods were cleared on payment of duty of Rs.2,36,837.00. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that it is proposed in the show cause notice, that the Assessee cleared the goods in scrap form. We find from the impugned order that the respondent reversed the credit of Rs.9,176.00 on the scrap material. The learned Counsel for the Assessee submits that the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on the scrap material. We find that the respondent at the time of clearance of processed goods, paid duty more than the amount availed on the rejected material. It is seen that they have cleared the scrap material and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly denied the credit on the scrap material. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

5. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The cross objection is also rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3