M/S Srinidhi Industries Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/540/2012-DB [Arising out of OIO-03/DEM/VAPI/2012, dt.30.03.20912, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

M/s Srinidhi Industries Ltd. Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For Respondent: Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

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

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:29.04.2015

Order No. A/10444 / 2015 dt.29.04.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre, Blended Yarn, and Man Made Staple Fibre, classifiable under Chapter 55 of the Central Tariff Act, 1985. On 24.03.2006, the Appellant opted exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004. The Central Excise Officers Audit party during the visit detected that the Appellant had not reversed the amount of CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,56,885.00 on the date of opting of Notification No.30/2004-CE (supra). The Appellant upon detection by the Central Excise Officers, immediately reversed an amount of Rs.1,56,885.00 on 30.01.2010 vide RG-23A Part II Entry Serial No.20/2010, dt.30.01.2010. A Show Cause Notice dt.22.03.2011 was issued proposing to deny the benefit of exemption notification No.30/2004-CE on the ground that the Appellant had not reversed the credit balance in their CENVAT account while opting the exemption notification. By the impugned adjudication order, the Adjudicating authority denied the benefit of exemption notification and confirmed the demand of Rs.2,45,18,543.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellant has already reversed the credit lying in their CENVAT account before issue of the Show Cause Notice. It is noted that on the identical issue, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee as under:-

a) Omkar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd.

2014 (311) ELT 587 ((Tri-Ahmd))

b) CTM Textile Mills Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2014 (313) ELT 405 (Tri-Ahmd)

c) Mangal Textile Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-I 2014 (311) ELT 707 (Tri-Ahmd)

d) Modern Petrofils DTY Division Vs CCE Vadodara 2014 (313) ELT 545 (Tri-Ahmd)

3. It is consistently viewed by the Tribunal that the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE cannot be denied on the ground that CENVAT Credit was reversed after clearance of the goods. It is noticed that in the present case, the Appellant reversed the credit. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Omkar Textiles Pvt. Ltd (supra) held that the quantum of CENVAT Credit reversed and there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty and the extended period of limitation cannot be attracted.

4. In view of the above, we find that the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3