Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh-Ii vs M/S.Mukat Pipes Limited on 5 June, 2013
IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/ Decision:05/06/2013
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the order for
Publication under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
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?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Appeals Nos.E/1405/2010, 1406/2010-EX and E/1408/2010-EX (SM)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.65-67/CE/Appl/CHD-II/2010 dated 15.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh)
CCE, Chandigarh-II Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Mukat Pipes Limited Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri S.Bector, AR for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for respondent. Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Orders Nos.56890-56892/2013 dated 05.06.2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The period of dispute in this case is Jan. 2008 to September, 2008. During the period of dispute, Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which provides that provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Cenvat Credit Rules would not be applicable in certain cases, did not cover to supply the SEZ developers. In this case, the respondent during the period of dispute had manufactured certain finished products out of cenvat credit availed inputs and had supplied those finished products without payment of duty to SEZ developers. The department was of the view that in respect of these supplies to SEZ developers, the respondent would not be eligible for cenvat credit. On this basis, after issue of show cause notices, the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner by three separate orders rejected the refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules on the ground that the respondent would not be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of the inputs, which were used in the manufacture of goods supplied without payment of duty to SEZ developers. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals), the above orders of the Asstt. Commissioner were set aside and as such, the appeals were filed. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), these appeals were filed by Revenue.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra and the same stands decided by a series of judgements of the Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2011 (273) ELT 112 (Tribunal-Bang.), Surya Roshini Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak reported in 2012 (285) ELT 518 (Tribunal-Delhi) and Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur Final Order No.A-289/2012-CE dated 6.3.2012. Revenues appeal against the last judgement in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by Honble Chattisgarh High Court vide judgement reported in 2013-TIOL-384-HC-CHATTISGARH-CX. In view of this, I do not find any merit in these appeals of the Revenue. The same are dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
2