Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Rubber King Tyres India Pvt. ...

(Arising out of OIA-22/2008-AHD-II-CE/RAJU/COMMR-(A) dated 22.08.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad)

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Rubber King Tyres India Pvt. Limited : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 29.09.2015

ORDER No. A/11361/2015 Dated 29.09.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the order of the adjudicating authority was set-aside.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Inner Tubes of Rubber for tyres, classifiable under Chapter 40 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were clearing the goods bearing their own brand name as well as the brand name of other person. The Respondent was originally availed modvat credit on the duty paid on inputs going into manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable goods but at the time of clearance of goods under SSI exemption notification, the 8% value of the exempted goods was debited in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. According to the Revenue, the Respondent is not eligible to avail SSI exemption.

3. We find that the Tribunal in the Respondents own case, for the earlier period, allowed the appeal on the identical issue, as reported in 2009 (233) ELT 120 (TA) (Asha Rubber (P) Limited vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-II) (the Respondent was earlier known as Asha Rubber (P) Limited). On perusal of the said decision, we find that the Tribunal passed the order following the decision in the case of Life Long Appliances Limited vs. Commissioner  2000 (123) ELT 1110 (Tribunal), which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2006 (196) ELT A144 (SC). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal following the Tribunals decision. In the grounds of appeal, the Revenue has not disputed this fact.

4. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

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

2