M/S Genus Electrotech Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[ Arising out of OIA-357-360/2007/COMMR-A-/RAJ dtd 13.12.2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT ]

M/s Genus Electrotech Limited - Appellant(s)

Vs

Commissioner of Central Excise- RAJKOT - Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Assessee : Shri Anand Nainavati, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 21/9/2015

ORDER No. A/11436-11439/2015 dtd 21/9/2015

Per : Mr.P.K. Das,

These appeals are arising out of a common order and, therefore, all are taken-up together for disposal.

2. The appellants set up an unit in the new Industrial Area at Kutch, for manufacturing Colour TV, Washing Machine, Energy Meter etc., and availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 39/2001-CE dtd 3.7.2001. The appellants filed refund claims in terms of the said Notification, which was rejected by the Adjudicating authority to the extent of 3 products viz., EPS Moulds, Corrugated Boxes and TV Moulded Parts. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellants.

3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the main contention of the Learned Advocate is that both the authorities rejected the refund claim on the ground that few machineries were installed prior to cut of date (i.e., 31.12.2005) and the production was started after the cut off date. The Learned Advocate submits that this issue is clarified by the CBCE Circular No. 110/21/2006-CX3 dtd 10th July, 2008 and as per the said Circular, they are eligible for refund of duty. On the other hand, the Learned Authorised Representative of behalf of the Revenue submits that in the case of one product, plant and machinery were installed after cut of date. He further submits that the commercial production was also started after cut off date (i.e., on 31.12.2005).

4. We find that there is a factual dispute in this case on installation of plant and machinery and commencement of commercial production before and after cut off date (i.e., 31.12.2005). These facts are required to be examined in the light of Board Circular. It is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-examine on the facts and Board Circulars.

5. In view of the above, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh on the eligibility of benefit of Notification in respect of the 3 products as stated above in the light of the Board Circular and to pass order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give proper opportunity for hearing before passing orders. All the appeals allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

swami ??

??

??

??

2