M/S. Research Development And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 220-222/2014-CE dated 24/04/2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I (Appeal). ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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

M/s. Research Development and Manufacturing Corporation #480C, 2nd Stage, 4th Phase, Peenya Industrial Area BANGALORE - 560058 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE  560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Sathya Vageeswaran, Advocate No.9, 22nd Main Road, (Between 38th & 39th Cross), 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore  560 041. For the Appellant

Mr. Pakshi Rajan, (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 22/01/2015

Date of Decision: 22/01/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20119 / 2015 Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

As a result of the proceedings initiated, CENVAT credit has been denied and total amount of Rs.2,51,547/- with interest has been demanded and penalty equal to the amount demanded has been imposed.

2. The learned counsel submits that appellants were carrying out only job work and the persons who had given the items for job work were paying duty and therefore, the products manufactured by them cannot be considered as exempted final products. He relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. rendered by Larger Bench as reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 (Tri.-L.B.). In that case, the Larger Bench took the view that MODVAT credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final products cleared without payment of duty for further utilization in the manufacture of final products which are cleared on payment of duty by the principle manufacturer would not be hit by provisions of Rule 57C. Following the above decision, since the facts and circumstances are same in this case also, and even though only stay application has been listed, the appeal itself has to be allowed since there is nothing else to be considered. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2