M/S.Indigo Flavours Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Jalandhar

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/Decision:28.10.2015

Excise Appeals No.E/3598 and 3599 of 2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.348-49/CE/Appeal/Jal/2006 dated 11.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar]

M/s.Indigo Flavours Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

CCE, Jalandhar Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by none for the appellant.

Rep. by Shri S. Nanthuk, Joint CDR for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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?

Coram: Honble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 53372-53373/2015 dated:28.10.2015

Per Sulekha Beevi C.S.:

Today, when the case came up for hearing as per published list none appeared for the appellant . A letter requesting for adjournment is filed stating the reason that the appellant unit is not in operation for many years and that their Legal Consultant is out of station. We do not think that this is a sufficient reason for adjourning a case listed for hearing. On several occasions, when the case came up in the list, such repeated requests for adjournment is seen filed. Being a very old matter, we proceed to consider the appeal after perusal of records.

2. The appellants who are manufacturer of Menthol Flakes & De-Mentholized oil established their new industrial unit at Birpur Industrial Area, Jammu. As such they claimed benefit under notification no.56/2003-CE dated 14.11.2002. The appellants discharged their duty liability as well as education cess from PLA account and then filed claim for refund as per the Notification. The Asstt. Commissioner sanctioned refund of duty paid but rejected the claim for refund of education cess paid by appellant. Against the order of rejection, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection of refund of education cess holding that education cess is not a duty of excise under Central Excise Act, 1944, or any other Act mentioned in the Notification No.56/2002 dated 14.11.2002. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the refund of education cess, the appellant has filed the above appeal.

3. The contention of the appellant is that the education cess paid through PLA has to be treated as duty of excise, we find that the issue is no longer res integra as the CESTAT vide judgement in CCE, Jammu Vs. Kaiser Industries Ltd.  2013 (298) ELT 636 (Tribunal-Delhi) has held that Notification No.56/2003-CE covers only the duty of excise leviable under Section 3(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and that refund of Education Cess & Secondary & Higher Education Cess is not covered by the exemption granted in the notification.

4. In view thereof, following the dictum laid in the above judgement, the impugned order calls for no interference. The appeals are dismissed.

[operative portion of the order already pronounced in the court]

( Sulekha Beevi C.S. )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1