Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd on 22 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/587/2007-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 11-2007 dated 30/05/2007 passed by CCE&ST(Appeals), LTU, Bangalore] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-LTU NULL 100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE, - 560085 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus KARNATAKA SOAPS & DETERGENTS LTD., SANDAL CITY, BANGALORE-PUNE HIGHWAY ROAD, BANGALORE Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Appellant Shri Raghavendra, Advocate For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 22/07/2015 Date of Decision: 22/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21674 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) for the Revenue and Shri Raghavendra, Advocate for the respondent.
2. As per the facts on record, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Sandal Wood billets, which they were classifying under heading 4403.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which attracted nil rate of duty. However on an audit by the Revenue, a view was entertained that the goods are properly classifiable under heading 4405.90 which is liable to duty at the rate of 16% ad voleram. The respondents accordingly paid the duty of Rs.5,86,545/- along with interest of Rs.1,30,817/- under protest in respect of the Sandal Wood billets manufactured and cleared by them for the period from September 2001 to October 2004. Subsequently they claimed the refund of the said deposit amount by submitting that proper classification is falling under chapter heading 4403.00 only. The said refund claim stands rejected by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the classification dispute has been held against them vide another order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. It is seen that the classification dispute, in a separate set of proceedings travelled before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide his order Order-in-Appeal No.31/2006-CE dt. 31/01/2006 resolved the same in favour of the assessee. As such when the present dispute of refund came before him by way of a separate appeal, he followed his earlier order settling the dispute on classification in favour of the assessee and held that the refund is admissible to the assessee. Vide his impugned order, he also disposed of two appeals of the Revenue which were against the orders of the original adjudicating authority vide which he had allowed the refund to the assessee. While doing so, he also observed that the earlier Order-in-Appeal No.31/2006 dt. 31/01/2006 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) holding the classification dispute in favour of the assessee stands accepted by the Revenue and there is no challenge to the same. He further observed that inasmuch as the classification has attained finality, the disputed amount is required to be refunded to the assessee.
4. Revenue in their memo of appeal has not uttered a word about the earlier order of Commissioner(Appeals) being Order-in-Appeal No.31/2006 and has again reiterated the issue on merits. It is not the Revenues case that the classification, as settled by the Order-in-Appeal No.31/2006, was not accepted by them and the said order was appealed against. As such we fully agree with the Commissioner(Appeals) that once the classification disputed attained finality, the consequence of the same would follow. If that be so, the assessee would be entitled to the refund of the deposits made by them during the period of classification.
5. As such, we find no merits in the Revenues appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER raja 4