M/S. Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. YDB/177/RGD/2011 dtd. 24/2/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals)-II, Mumbai]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, 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?

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

M/s. Aquapharm Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. :

Appellants

VS

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri. Gajendra Jain, Advocate, Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 4/2/2015 Date of decision 4/2/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.K. Jain

The brief facts of the case are appellant is 100% EOU and part of the production is being cleared in DTA. For the said DTA clearance they are required to pay duty under Section-3-proviso clause (ii) which provides that the excise duty shall be an amount equal to the aggregated of the duty of the customs which would be leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force on like goods produced or manufactured outside India if imported into India. In the present case the issue is relating to chargeability of Education Cess /Higher Education Cess.

2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is already decided by the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE[2013(290)E.L.T. 372(T-LB)]. The same view has been taken by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Claris Lifeinsurances Ltd. Vs. UOI[2013(298)E.L.T. 45(Guj)].

3. Ld. A.R. reiterates the finding in the impugned order.

4. We find that the issue relating to 3rd time charging of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess in respect of goods cleared from 100% EOU to DTA has been finally settled by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kumar Arch Tech Pvt. Ltd.(supra). We are bound by the said decision and accordingly we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.

(Operative part pronounced in the Court)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.K. Jain Member (Technical) sk

2