Nikitech Electric Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 333/2010-C.E dated 06/12/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

NIKITECH ELECTRIC PVT LTD NO.30-31, SLV INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, 8TH MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560058 Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs BANGALORE-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE  560 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. R. RANGASWAMY, CONSULTANT NO.4 IIND FLOOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT ROAD, SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA, NEW THARAGUPET, BANGALORE  560002. KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Mr. Ilangovan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 26/05/2015

Date of Decision: 26/05/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21210 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of dutiable as also exempted final products. Proceedings were initiated against them in terms of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 raising demand of 10% of the value of exempted final product. The appellant took a plea that they have reversed the credit relatable to the exempted final product. Such plea of the appellant does not stand accepted by the lower authorities on the ground that such reversal was subsequent to the clearance of the goods.

2. As such, it is seen that the short question to be decided is as to whether subsequent reversal of the CENVAT credit relatable to the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted excisable goods would be sufficient so as not to resort to the provisions of Rule 6, I find that the issue is covered by various decisions. Once such reference can be made to Honble Gujarat High Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II vs. Maize Products: 2009 (234) E.L.T. 431 (Guj.) as also to Tribunals decision in the case of Dr. Writers Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-II: 2009 (247) E.L.T. 391 (Tri.-Mumbai) and to the decision of the Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. vs. UOI reported in 2004 (174) E.L.T. 422 (All.).

3. As such, it is seen that the legal issue stand decided in favour of the assessee. However, the lower authorities have rejected their plea on the said legal issue itself without actually verifying the quantum of credit reversed by the appellant. Such verification is necessary, for which the matter is being sent to the original adjudicating authority. He would verify as to whether the credit reversed by the appellant is correct or not and would pass a fresh order upon the same.

Appeal is disposed of in above manner.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 26.5.2015.)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 2