Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hikal Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 23 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I APPEAL NO. E/1281 & 1282/06-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AT/104-105/RGD/2006 dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II.) 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 : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
===================================================== M/s Hikal Ltd.
Mr. N.D. Rane Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent Appearance:
Shri Mehul Jivani, C.A. for Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 23.09.2016 Date of Decision: 23.09.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran:
These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AT/104-105/RGD/2006 dated 21.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the main appellant M/s Hikal Ltd. is eligible to avail the CENVAT credit of CVD paid on the goods Isoproturon Tech (hereinafter refer to as goods) or otherwise. It is undisputed that goods were imported by the main appellant, they were re-packing and re-labeling and subsequently clearing the same on payment of duty. Under impression that they are eligible for CENVAT credit, main appellant took credit of the C.V.D. paid. It is the case of the Revenue that the goods which are imported not inputs as it is not consumed for manufacture any final product. I find that both the lower authorities have erred in coming to such conclusion in as much, it is undisputed that main appellant had discharged duty on the final product, and in my view were eligible to avail the CENVAT credit of C.V.D. and Central Excise duty paid on the said goods. This law is now settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III Vs. Ajinkya Enterprises [2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom.)] and followed by the Tribunal in the case of S. Kumars Nationwide Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore [2014 (312) ELT 725 (Tri.-Del.)].
4. In view of the foregoing, I find that the impugned order is unsustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sp 3 APPEAL NO. E/1281 & 1282/06-Mum