Rlc Engineers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI

COURT No. I

APPEAL No.C/1635/05

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BR/21/Th-II/2005 dated 20/01/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV)

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

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 :Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

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

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

RLC Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent Thane-II

Appearance: Shri.M.S.Murthy, Advocate for appellant Shri.M.S.Reddy, Dy. Comm. (AR), for respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 17/04/2015 Date of Decision : 17/04/2015

ORDER NO

Per: M.V. Ravindran

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.BR/21/Th-II/2005 dated 20/01/2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-IV.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the non-discharge of customs duty on the duty free imported material, which was lying unutilized in the manufacturing premises beyond the prescribed period of one year. We find that the appellants are not disputing the fact that the material which was imported duty free and warehoused could not be used within the time period as was given by Notification No.53/97-Cus dated 03/06/1997. The said provisions are applicable in the case in hand and lower authorities are justified in confirming the demand raised. The arguments raised by the learned Counsel was the amount was debited in B-17 bond when the material was cleared from the bonded godown for the manufacture of export goods amount to payment of duty which we do not agree. Another point which was raised by the appellants Counsel is that as regards the demands of some of the input material has been passed and consumed by them, chart was brought to our notice which indicted that some duty liability may arise on the appellant while some duty liability needs to be set aside.

4. In our view, the appellants are required to deposit the amount of the Customs duty as has been accepted by them and admitted along with interest within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copies of the order.

5. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of.

(Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

pj

1 3