M/S. Ganpati Plastic Fab Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No.E/1356/2010-EX[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal sets aside the impugned order because both parties accepted that the issue is covered in the appellant's favour by the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Raghav Alloy Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Rohini Mills Ltd.; the reasoning rests on those binding precedents, and the text itself does not state the principle those decisions laid down.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 117(DK)CE/JPR-I/2010 dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeal), Jaipur-I]
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. Ganpati Plastic Fab Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Ms.Surabhi Sinha, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri. R.K. Grover, DR
Coram:HONBLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
HONBLE MR.S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 23/04/2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51536/2015
PER: RAKESH KUMAR
The appellant had received certain capital goods in respect of which the cenvat credit has been taken. The capital goods were cleared during the period from May 2007 to July, 2007 after being used for 10 to 13 years on payment of duty of Rs.4,46,592/- on the transaction value. While the appellant had paid duty of Rs.4,46,592, according to the department, at the time of clearances of the used capital goods an amount equal to the cenvat credit originally taken i.e. Rs.18,04,880/- was payable. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued for recovery of the differential amount of Rs.13,99,037/- alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order in original dated 09.10.2009 by which the above mentioned demand under Rule 3 (5) of the cenvat credit rules, 2004 was confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest on it under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules and read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on them under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2002 read with section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act. On appeal being filed, Commissioner (Appeals) against this order while the demand of the amount of Rs.13,99,037/- alongwith interest was upheld, the penalty was set aside. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Both the sides agree that the issued involved in this case stands decided in the appellants favour by the judgment of Honble P & H High Court in the case of Raghav Alloy Ltd. vs.CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2012 (26) STR 87 ( P & H) and also by the judgment of Honble Madras High Court in the case of Rohini Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Salem reported in 2011 (264) ELT 367.
4. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside and 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