Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Saurashtra Cement Ltd on 16 April, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.E/822/2007-DB
[Arising out of OIO No.04 to 10/BVR/Commr/2007, dt.30.03.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar]
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Bhavnagar Appellant
Vs
M/s Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:16.04.2015 Order No. A/10333 / 2015, dt.16.04.2015 Per: P.K. Das
1. The Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Clinkers. During the scrutiny of the RT-12 returns, it was noticed that they had cleared the Cement by availing exemption Notification No.2/2001-CE, dt.27.01.2001 and Notification No.16/2001-CE, dt.26.03.2001 for earthquake relief. Five Show Cause Notices were issued for the period from March 2001 to March 2004, demanding the amount of 8% of the value of the Cement cleared without payment of duty. It has been alleged that the Appellant used the Clinkers as an intermediate product which is dutiable used in the manufacture of exempted final product Cement. Another two show cause notices were issued for the period from July 2001 to 25.07.2002 demanding duty on Clinkers manufactured and consumed in the manufacture of Cement cleared without payment of duty for earthquake relief. By the impugned order, dt.30.03.2007, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar dropped the proceedings against the two show cause notices in respect of demand of duty on Clinkers. But, he confirmed the demand of the amount of 8% of the value of the finished product under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
2. The Assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal against the confirmation of demand of amount of 8% of the value of the final product under Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Revenue also filed appeal against the impugned order for dropping of the demand of duty on Clinkers in respect of two show cause notices. In the Appeal of the Assessee/Respondent, the Tribunal by Final Order No.A/573-574/WZB/AHD/2009, dt.26.02.2009, in Appeal No.C/924 & 926/2007, filed against the present impugned order remanded the matter to Commissioner for verification of the correctness of the reversal of credit of various amounts. Now, we take up the present appeal filed by the Revenue for disposal.
3. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondents made a preliminary submission that as per remand Order dt.26.02.2009 of the Tribunal, the Adjudicating authority by OIO No.07 to 10/BVR/ Commissioner/2010, dt.31.03.2010, dropped the proceedings in respect of five show cause notices. He also placed a copy of the OIO, dt.31.03.2010 before the Bench.
4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that in de-novo proceedings, the Commissioner of Central Excise, accepted the reversal of credit on the inputs in respect of the clearance of the exempted goods and dropped the proceedings. This fact was not disputed by both the sides. We find that from the impugned order that the period of dispute in the present two show cause notices are covered in respect of other five show cause notices. So, it is clearly evident that the Appellant reversed the credit utilized on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product. This fact was also accepted by the Department. As the period of dispute in the present case is covered in the earlier five show cause notices where the demand was dropped, the appeal filed by the Revenue in respect of said Show Cause Notices cannot be sustained.
5. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) cbb 3