Laxmi Organic Inds. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad

(Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. AT/44/RGD/2005 dated 31.1.2005 and No. AT/557/RGD/2006 dated 11.9.2006 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) and Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

Laxmi Organic Inds. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent

Appearance: Shri Dinesh Agarwal, C.A., for appellant Shri H.M. Dixit, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 22.9.2015 Date of Decision: 22.9.2015

ORDER NO

Per: P.K. Jain

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of various chemicals. One of the items manufactured by them is ethyl acetate which they are sending to a distillery which in turn uses the same in the manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol and such denatured ethyl alcohol is received by them. At the time of clearance of ethyl acetate, the appellant is not paying for excise duty and the job worker is not claiming any credit of duty on ethyl acetate. After manufacture of denatured ethyl alcohol, duty is paid by the job worker including the cost of ethyl acetate and the goods are received by the appellant who in turn avail the credit of the duty paid by the job worker. The case of the Revenue is that the appellant should have paid the duty on ethyl acetate before clearance of the goods.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in their own case, the Tribunal vide final order No. A/1045/2007-WZB/C-IV/(SMB) dated 4.7.2007 reported in 2007 (220) ELT 194 (Tri.-Mum.) has allowed the appeal. The Revenue has filed appeal against the said order of the Tribunal which has been dismissed by the Honble Bombay High Court as reported in 2008 (229) ELT A182 (Bom.). No appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said order of the Honble Bombay High Court. Learned counsel also submitted that consequent to the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals), all the pending show cause notices have been dropped by the Commissionerate and this was an old case which was pending in the Tribunal and has come up for decision now.

3. Learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.

4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the issue involved has been decided in appellants own case reported in 2007 (220) ELT 194 (Tri.-Mum.) which has been upheld by the Honble Bombay High Court.

5. In view of the said factual position, we allow the appeals filed by the appellant.

(Pronounced in Court)

(S.S. Garg) Member (Judicial) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical)

tvu 1 3