Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E.-Delhi-Iv

Date of Pronouncement: 10/07/2015

Appeal No. E/55064/2014-EX(SM)

(Arising out of OIA No. 57-CE-APPL-DLH-IV dated 12.5.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax Faridabad)

1. Whether Press Reporter 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?

Maharishi Ayurveda Products Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E.-Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri S.D. Gaur, Consultant

Present for the Respondent: Shri Ranjan Khanna, AR

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52153/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic Medicines, preparation of vegetable dry fruits and Herbal Tea. A Show Cause Notice was issued alleging that they have used common inputs and input services in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted final product. That the appellants did not maintain separate accounts as required under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

2. At the time of hearing the Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is not manufacturing exempted goods, but the Ayurvedic Medicines are being cleared under Notification No. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 on payment of concessional/notified rate of duty. That there is no manufacture of exempted goods. Tough this was specifically urged in the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was not considered. Further that concessional rate of duty is availed only when Cenvat Credit has not been availed. The consultant submitted that common inputs or input services were not used as alleged in the Show Cause Notice.

3. Upon such submissions, I find that the authorities below have not taken note of the correct factual aspects of the case. The learned DR also submitted that the matter needed to be remanded.

4. In view of the above, I hold that it is necessary to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication.

5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority.

(Pronounced on 10/07/2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

2