Ludhiana vs M/S Alfa Products

[Arising out of OIA No.205/CE/CHD/2006, dt.21.03.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ludhiana]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

M/s Alfa Products Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Kackria, Adv.

For Respondent: Shri D.V. Nagvenkar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

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 Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:21.01.2015

Final Order No.50984/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Revenue filed this appeal filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the adjudication order 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 Copper Alloys, Zinc Pellets and Copper Wire, classifiable under Chapter 74 and 79 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit of exemption Notification No.9/2000 and No.9/2001 on the ground that the product being claimed by the Respondent as Brass Billets are actually Brass Ingots and as such the normal rate of duty is chargeable. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.

3. It is seen from the impugned order that the Respondent contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the issue has already been decided by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise in the case of Usha Impex vide OIO No.87/ADC/04, dt.2.8.04, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Ludhiana vide OIA Nlo.389/Central Excise/LDH/05, dt.28.09.2005, wherein it has been held that the product in question is nothing but Brass Billets. Revenue in the grounds of appeal stated that the said OIA dt.28.09.2005 has not been accepted by the Department and the appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. We find that the Revenue filed appeal against the said Order-in-Appeal, dt.28.09.2005. By Final Order No.163/2010/EX/2010, dt.06.04.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision dt.06.04.2010 is reproduced below:

4. We are able to note that the learned Adjudicating Authority has applied his mind to make a thorough enquiry about the goods itself and its characteristics. He has found in Page 19 of the adjudication order that there is no definition of the term Brass Ingots and Billets in Central Excise Tariff of HSN classification. Therefore, he found it safe to refer to the characteristics of the goods given by Bureau of Indian Standard Specifications. He has examined the issue and found out what Brass Ingots means and what Brass Billet explains. He found that the goods manufactured by the appellant was alloy of copper and zinc. He also came to a conclusion that when brass was not manufactured goods by the appellants, the composition in the goods of the appellants established the same to be Billets. He tried to examine the reports obtained from the Metallurgical Department of Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh and specially noticed that the report was incomplete. He viewed that there was no examination of the characteristics of the goods done. The Prof. went by the shape of goods to come to his conclusion. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority adopted the meaning of the term Billet from BIS specification and concluded in favour of the assessee, when he found that the goods manufactured by the Appellant was less than 5 kgs.

5. We are unable to find strength of argument of Revenue to disturb the findings of the learned Adjudicating Authority except the only submission that the Billet is different from Ingots. Billets and Ingots differ from each other for the reasoned order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority which is precisely aforesaid.

6. We find that the learned Adjudicating Authority has concurred with the decision of the learned Adjudicating Authority for the reason stated by the adjudication order and nothing contrary was noticed by him. Finding no evidence to say the Appellate order was perverse, we uphold the order of the learned Appellate Authority below. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed.

4. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Billets and Ingots are different. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Usha Impex (supra) has already considered the submissions of the ld.Authorised Representative.

5. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, as stated above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3