M/S Xen Central Workshop vs Jalandhar (Hq At Chandigarh)

[Arising out of OIA No.168/CE/APPL/JAL/06, dt.28.04.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Jalandhar.

M/s XEN Central Workshop Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Jalandhar (HQ at Chandigarh) Respondent

Represented by:

For Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Authorised Representative

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble 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:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:23.01.2015

Final Order No.51102/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. The Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Articles of Iron and Steel, Electrical Appliances and Lead Seals, classifiable under Chapter 73, 78 and 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants cleared the goods on payment of duty on transaction value. According to the Revenue, the Appellant is liable to pay duty on their product @ 110% of the cost of production under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in Appellants own case M/s XEN Central Workshop PSEB Vs CCE Jallandhar  2014 (308) ELT 133 (Tri-Del.). In that case, the Tribunal, following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pcc Pole Factory Vs CCE  2003 (158) ELT 429 (SC) held that the Revenue failed to establish that the goods manufactured by the Appellant were used in the production or manufacture of any other articles liable to Excise duty and therefore, application of Rule 8 does not arise. In view of that, we set aside the impugned order.

3. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed with consequential relief.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2