M/S.Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/662/2010-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer clears goods without payment of duty under a conditional exemption notification, the Rule 6(3) reversal of cenvat credit does not arise on the strength of the dispute as framed here; the demand under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, together with interest and penalty, cannot be sustained, following the Tribunal's own earlier decision in the appellant's case for a prior period, which in turn followed the Larger Bench decision in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. and the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd., as the parties agreed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.362/MA/GGN/2009 dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?
__________________________________________________
M/s.Agarwal Metal Works Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.T.R. Rastogi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri.R.K. Gupta, DR
Shri M.S. Negi, DR
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 13/05/2015
Final ORDER NO. _______________
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
The appellant are manufacturer of copper circles which they manufacture on their own account and also on job work basis. During the period of dispute the appellant were receiving Copper circles from the principal manufacturers and manufacturing copper circuits out of the same which were being returned to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty under notification No.214/86-CE. For manufacture of copper, circles, whether on their own account or on job work basis, they were using some of the common inputs LPG and caustic soda in respect of which they were availing the cenvat credit. The point of dispute is as to whether in respect of clearances of copper circles to principal manufacturers without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-CE, the appellant would be required to pay an amount equal to 10% of the sale value under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is on this basis that the Joint Commissioner vide order in original dated 28.05.2009 has confirmed the demand of Rs.47,58,932/- against the appellant alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This order of Joint Commissioner was upheld by CCE (Appeals), vide order in appeal dated 26.11.2007 against which this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Both the sides agree that the Tribunal in the appellants own case for the previous period vide Final Order No.1037/2011-Ex dated 28.11.2011 has allowed the appeal following the Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industreis (India) Ltd. reported in 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri-LB) and also the judgement of Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd. reported in 2011 (268) ELT 360 (P & H). In view of this, following the Tribunals judgment dated 28.11.2011, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(S.K.MOHANTY) (RAKESH KUMAR)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Anita
??
??
??
??
0
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