Karnataka High Court
The Commr Of Central Excise vs M/S Fitwel Tools & Forgings (P) Ltd on 24 May, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 PRESENT _ J _ THE I-IONBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. ' % AND THE HoN*eLI«: MRS. JUSTICE B;V.2NIAGAR,AYTI¥IVNA C.E.A. No.24:VV:'2oo6 V BETWEEN: THE coMMIss:I.0:\I:If:ja oi? BANGALORE II.TCo'MMIss1Q:\'ERIATIa* CRBUILDINGS3, '2 -- QUEENSAROAD sANGALORE----560 V00 . " * " 2 ...APPELLAN'l' (By sag; "T vEI\"n:<A*TA RILIJDY, ADV.) M./S1'i*4*ITI2\zEII}7T<3oLs es: FORGINGS (P) L'I'D., _ No.5";'~KI~I.TCo'M1>LEX I '.TUMKU1F§-E72106 . .. RESPONDENT
{B5,} 'SIT: M A NARAYAN, ADV.) This CEA is filed u/S.35G of the Centrai Excise Act, 1944 against. the Order dated 04~0"/V2005 passed in Final Order No.1103/2005 vide Appeal No.43/2005 dated 23-02-2005. praying to formulate the substantial questions ,/ J j of law stated therein, set aside the Final Order No.ll03/2005 dated 04-07-2005 of the CESTAT, South Zone Bench. Bangalore in so far as it re1ates_pto"-«._th.e respondent herein and to restore the order=in}fappe.aI"
No.43/2005 dated 23-02-2005 passed by the Coi3arr1issionei'------.p of Central Excise. (Appeals), Bangalore in _the_:"inte.rest of"
justice.
This CEA coming on <.._f()r N.K. Patti J.. delivered the folloW1n'g_ The appellant. _assailingi:tl1_e 'rlegality correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT, Bangalore'; vide AnneXure~A has presented this " C
2. appeal-yyfas. admitted to consider the following 'substantial'«qiiestions of law:
the forgings which are of input nature ' ~wi1ot utilised in the final product but used for manufacture of capital goods, in the factory manufacturer of the final product is covered under the Rule 57AH of the erstwhile Central Excise rules 1944/ rule 12 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2002 ?
ii} Whether the notification No.87/95 CE dated i6.3.i995 is applicable for the mould and dies M 3 V7?' which are further used in the manufacture of forged components on job work basis and cleared the same at NIL rate of duty'?
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respoiihdeynt herein filed the appeal No.1io3/2005 before if t contending that during the course of audit of financial records by the audit departrnent,'*<.it fyiovticled that the assessee has wrongly availedthe the inputs i.e.. die blocks WhiCh"£'.If.é"i11Sed intlieojriaatiufacture of moulds and dies and turiilmth-ese moulds and" dies are used in the manufacture of goods' on job work basis if .vvithout payment of duty contrarylio the « erstwhile Rule 57AD of Central Excise. Rules} 194-4...rea'd Rule 6 of CENVAT inasmuch 'as were: xwrongtlyavailing CENVAT credit on the inputs st'a.ted Therefore, a sh0w--cause notice was issued by the __Asst._ C'ori':rnissioner of Central Excise to the assessee. '<fI'hereafter:, he passed an order demanding the assessee -to the amount that was wrongly availed, along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved by the said order, the ft",hfrespondenvassessee filed an appeal before the competent authority who in retum Without considering the relevant material on record and without assigning valid reasons to the parties and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possibie. A}! the grounds urged by the parties are left. .3}.