Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Aradhna Soft Drinks Co

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 568/SVS/RTK/2013 dated 24/10/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi III ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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 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?

Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants

Delhi V (Rohtak)

Vs.

M/s. Aradhna Soft Drinks Co. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Devender Singh, AR for the Appellants

Ms Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 10.4.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51438 /2015-(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order only on the following grounds:

The Adjudicating authority vide OIO No. 97/CE/ADC/AKR/12-13 dated 11.01.2013 had discussed the issue of reversing of an amount equal to the Cenvat Credit availed on glass bottles / plastic shells cleared against retaining of security deposit, they had retained Rs.150/- per create of glass bottles containing 24 glass bottles each in a Plastic shell. The party has purchased these glass bottles and shells @ Rs.7.65/- and Rs.79/- respectively. Thus party was liable to reverse Cenvat credit availed on the said glass bottles and plastic shells which amounted to Rs. 21,69,002/-. This duty amount was confirmed in the OIO and equal amount of penalty was imposed by the original authority, against which the party had gone in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Whereas, the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the final order in the instant case has decided on the issue Whether the appellant is required to pay duty on the scrap of glass bottles broken during the process of filing and packing etc. of soft drinks. He also relied upon a case law in the case of CCE, Delhi vs. M/s. Dhillon Kool Drinks and Beverages Ltd. The issue therein was that the waste and scrap arising out of the broken bottles through the process of filing, handling etc. was neither generated during the course of manufacture of glass bottles nor it could be considered as a manufacture of glass bottles nor it could be considered as a manufactured product. Whereas the issue involved in the instant case relates to non-payment of duty on the security deposit retained by the dealers in lieu of glass bottles and crates that were not returned by their dealers.

2. Heard the parties.

3. I observed that in this case the issue before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was to be decided is whether the respondent is required to reverse the Cenvat credit in respect of reuseable and destroyable glass bottles and plastic crates returned by the buyers of soft drinks whereas learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue whether the appellant is required to pay duty on scrap and glass bottles broken during the process of filing and packing of soft drinks or not. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in deciding the issue before him. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue as prayed by the Revenue in their appeal. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2