Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Vikrant Tyres Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 319/2004 dated 02/08/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Mysore S1-S2, Vinaya Marga, Siddhartha Nagar, Mysore  570 011 Karnataka Appellant(s)

Versus Vikrant Tyres Ltd. KRS Road, Metagalli Mysore  570 016 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. S.K. Singh, AR For the Appellant

Mr. Dattatray D. Bhat, Advocate Gurukrupa, #44, Sheshadripuram College Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore - 560 020 For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 21/07/2015 Date of Decision: 21/07/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21669 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by lower authorities Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard both the sides duly represented by Mr. S.K. Singh, DR for the Revenue and Mr. Dattatray D. Bhat, Advocate for the respondent.

2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the cenvat credit of Additional Excise Duty paid under the AED (Goods of Special Importance) Act and its utilization towards basic excise duty. The lower authorities have allowed the benefit to the assessee in respect of such credit to the extent of around 3.20 Crores (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Lakhs) approximately. The relevant Cenvat Credit Rules which would be applicable to the facts of the present case would be Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. As per amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 vide Notification No. 13/2003-CE (N.T.) dated 01.03.2003, the credit of AED (GSI) could be utilized for payment of duty of excise leviable under first and second schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 w.e.f. 01.03.2003 and the appellant utilized the credit accumulated for payment of basic excise duty and special excise duty. Both sides agree that credit of duty AED (GSI), after 01.03.2003 Revenues objection is that the credit availed after 01.03.2003 would be available for utilization but credit availed prior to that may not be. Learned DR has also drawn our attention to the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 which came into effect subsequently but which provide the utilization of accumulated credit prior to 01.04.2000 onwards.

3. As such we find that the entire dispute revolves around the period of availment of AED. As per the learned advocate the period is from 01.04.2001 to 30.09.2001 in one appeal and also around 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2002. However he has not been able to substantiate the above stand inasmuch as the said period stands nowhere mentioned either in the order of the original adjudicating authority or in the impugned order in appeal. Inasmuch as the period is important, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the period during which the credit was availed and utilized and to re-decide the issue afresh in the light of the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules. We make it clear that we have not gone to the merits and have not expressed our opinion on the same. Revenues appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss