M/S Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd vs Cce, Noida

[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 29/COMMR/2010-11 dated 25/03/2011 passed by The Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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 would 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 :

Department Authorities?

M/s Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. Appellant

Versus

CCE, Noida Respondent

Appearance

Shri Arsid Jain, Advocate  for the appellant.

Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the Respondent.

CORAM: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 52272/2015 Dated : 15/07/2015

Per. B. Ravichandran :-

The appellant is operating as a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Wiring Harness. The short point in the present appeal is inclusion of Special Additional Duty (SAD) leviable under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 while computing the excise duty payable by an EOU on the clearance of goods manufactured by them to their own unit in DTA by way of stock transfer. By the impugned order dated 25/03/2011 the learned Commissioner held that the said SAD component is includable while paying duty on stock transfer clearances to their DTA unit. He confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,24,92,540/- and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the present issue is no more res-integra as the same has been decided conclusively by the various Benches of the Tribunal. He relied on this Tribunals order in the case of VVF Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2014  TIOL  04  CESTAT  MUM. and Tribunal decision in Micro Inks vs. CCE & ST, Daman reported in 2014  TIOL  258  CESTAT  AHM and VVF Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 303 (Tri.  Mumbai). We find that the Tribunal in various cases including those sited (supra) held that in the case of stock transfers made by EOU it cannot be said that Sales Tax/VAT is exempted so as to deny the benefit of exemption from SAD in view of specific exemption granted under Notification No. 23/2003-CE considering the already settled position in the above decision of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.)

(Ashok Jindal)

Member (Judicial)

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

2