(Ii) M/S. Nitco Terrazzo Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 15/2011-CE
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The demands under Section 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules cannot be sustained in respect of goods supplied to SEZ developers on the footing that such supply was free of duty, where the same issue is covered by a binding decision of the Tribunal and of the High Court; the impugned orders are set aside on the strength of those decisions, the Tribunal following them without independent reasoning of its own.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2011-CE dated 24/01/2011 & Order-in-Appeal No. 123/2012 dated 23/05/2012 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL 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?
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
(i) M/s. ARDEX ENDURA (INDIA) PVT LTD NO.73,/1B, BYREGOWDA INDL. ESTATE, HEGGANAHALLI, PEENYA II ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560091
(ii) M/s. NITCO TERRAZZO PVT LTD NO.79/A, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE 562106 Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs BANGALORE-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 KARNATAKA
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. H.Y. Raju, Advocate M.S. SRINIVASA #185, 'BRAHM', 'G' CROSS, 3RD BLOCK EXTENSION, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 72 KARNATAKA For the Appellant
Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19/06/2015
Date of Decision: 19/06/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21383 - 21384 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
Both the appeals are being taken up for a common order as the issue involved is the same.
2. Revenue has raised demands against the appellant in terms of the provisions of Section 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, in respect of goods supplied to SEZ developers on the ground that the said supply was free of duty.
3. Both sides agree that the issue is covered by the Tribunals decision in the case of Sujana Metals Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 2011-TIOL-1173 (CESTAT-Bang.) as also by Honble Karnataka High Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Bangalore vs. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd.: 2015 (318) E.L.T. 240 (Kar.).
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned orders and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Order pronounced in open court)
ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
rv 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free