M/S. Shivangi Steels P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 548-CE/APPL/KNP/2010 dated 27.10.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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. Shivangi Steels P Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Kanpur

Appearance:

Shri A K Dixit, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 12.1.2015

FINAL ORDER NOS. A/ 50044/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order of confirmation of duty demand and along with interest and equal amount of penalty.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of MS ingots and they installed induction furnace for manufacturing the same. A case was booked against the appellant for the period March, 1997 to April, 1997 on the ground that as per various studies the average consumption of electricity of 1000 unit is required to manufacture 1MT of MS ingots. Therefore, on the basis of production and consumption of electricity, a show cause notice was issued to demand duty for excess consumption of electricity which resulted in clandestine removal of goods. The matter was adjudicated and demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and penalty was also imposed. On appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the order of adjudication was confirmed. And therefore, appellant is before me in second round of litigation.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Considering the fact that issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of R A Casting [2011 (269) ELT A 108 (SC)] and in the case of SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. and other reported in [2014-TIOL-1530- CESTAT-Mum] wherein it was held that duty cannot be demanded on the basis of presumption of consumption of electricity. Therefore, following the precedent decision of this Tribunal, I hold that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law wherein the duty has been demanded on the basis of consumption of electricity. In these terms, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief (if any).

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2