Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Turbo Energy Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & St, Ltu on 8 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI Appeal Nos.E/607/2010 & E/608/2010 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.LTUC/253-254/2010-C dt. 19.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU Chennai] Turbo Energy Ltd. Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, LTU Chennai Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. J.Ragini, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM :
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of hearing / decision : 08.09.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 42001-42002 / 2017 Per B. Ravichandran These two appeals are against common impugned order dt. 19.08.2010 of Commissioner, LTU, Chennai.
2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Turbo Chargers and parts thereof and are paying central excise duty. They were availing credit on the inputs in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After conducting certain verification of their records, Revenue initiated proceedings against them with reference to a wrong availment of cenvat credit on inputs procured from 100% EOU. The dispute in the present case is the quantification of eligible credit available for such inputs on which duty has been paid by the EOU under Sl.No.2 of Notification No.23/2003-CE dt. 31.03.2003 as amended. The original authority held that the appellants have irregularly availed credit of Special Additional Duty of Customs and Cess paid on the inputs. He confirmed a credit amount of Rs.4,15,71,472/- and Rs.2,53,76,539/- in respect of the two demand notices. He imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the appellant.
3. Ld. counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that they have availed credit in terms of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and there is no irregular or excess credit in respect in respect of inputs procured from 100% EOU. She further submits that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in a recent decision in respect of M/s.Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs CCE-II - 2017 (7) TMI 19 CESTAT NEW DELHI held that assessee is eligible for credit of additional duty of customs including SAD. The Tribunal relied on the earlier decisions in the case of Sri Venkateshwara Precision Components Vs CCE Chennai 2010 (258) ELT 553 (Tri.-Chennai) and Jai Corp. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST Vapi 2015 (317) ELT 489 (Tri.-Ahmedabad). She also relied on decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Tyche Industries Ltd. Vs CCE Viakhapatnam 2014 (314) ELT 732 (Tri.-Bang.) and Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs CCE Pune - 2008 (225) ELT 513 (Tri.-Mumbai).
4. Ld. A.R reiterated the findings of the lower authorities.
5. We have heard both sides and perused appeal records. On careful consideration of the defence submissions made by appellants, we note that the very same issue was the subject matter of decision before Tribunal and the matter is resolved in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, following the ratio of the decisions mentioned herein above, we find no merit in the impugned order and accordingly set aside the same. Appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law.
(dictated and pronounced in court)
(B. Ravichandran) (Sulekha Beevi C.S)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
gs
4
Appeal No.E/607,608/2010