New Era Adhesive Ind vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/273/NSK/2010 dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No 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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes of the Order?

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

New Era Adhesive Ind. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M.S. Jagesha, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 31.03.2015 Date of decision : 31.03.2015

O R D E R No:..

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AKP/273/NSK/2010 dated 30.09.2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs and inputs in WIP when the appellant assessee availed the benefit of SSI notification from 01.04.2009.

4. The ld. Counsel submits that the issue has now been squarely settled by the order of the Tribunal in Tirupati Pipes & Allied Inds. P. Ltd. vide final order no. A/797/WZB/Mum/09/ SMB/CIV dated 15.12.2009 and produced a copy of the same.

5. The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand, would rely on the decision of the Tribunal in Albert David Ltd. vs. CCE 2003 (151) ELT 443 (Tri-Del) which has been upheld by the Apex Court and review petition has also been dismissed vide 2003 (158) ELT A 273 (SC). It is the submission of the Departmental Representative that once the exemption is claimed, the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs in stock as well as finished goods needs to be reversed.

6. I find that the issue involved in this case is regarding the Cenvat credit which has been availed by the appellant and utilised prior to 01.04.2009. It is a case of the revenue that from 1.4.2009 when the appellant availed SSI exemption is for the first clearance of `150 lakhs as per Notification no. 8/2003, he should have paid the amount which is equivalent to the duty liability of the credit availed on inputs and inputs in WIP which is in stock. I find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal bench in Tirupati Pipes & Allied Inds. (supra) wherein on similar issue was considered and the order therein was also passed by the very same office of the Commissioner (Appeals), Nashik. Since the issue has been considered from various angle and a view has been taken considering the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CCE vs. CNC Commercial Ltd. 2008 (224) ELT 239 (P&H); I find the impugned order is incorrect.

7. As regards the case law relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative, I find that in the case of Albert David Ltd. (supra) the facts of the issue was regarding the reversal of amount of Cenvat credit on inputs lying in stock on the date when the final product exempted. The facts of that case and this case are totally different.

8. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3