Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 January, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/472/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.124/2003-TRY(ADK) dated 21.4.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, 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? :
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri S.Venkatachalam, Advocate Shri T.H.Rao, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 5.1.2010 Date of decision : 5.1.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has upheld the adjudication order by which a demand of Rs.66,04,878/- has been confirmed on the ground that the assessees had not paid duty on consignment basis (for defaulted payment of duty on fortnightly basis) by debiting duty in current account, and penalty of Rs.1 lakh.
2. The assessees who are engaged in the manufacture of sodium silicate liquid and soluble glass had defaulted in the payment of duty on fortnightly basis three times in the same financial year ie. during 2000-01 and they cleared the goods by debiting their CENVAT credit account on consignment basis while the department was of the view that the duty was required to be paid by debiting in the current account. We find that it has been held by the Honble Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Vs UOI [2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.)] that in the absence of any provisions to the contrary, the assessee is entitled to utilize CENVAT credit for payment of Central Excise duty on clearance of the final product. This is the same view expressed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Noble Drugs Ltd. Vs CCE Nasik [2007 (215) ELT 500]. The High Courts judgment has been followed by the Tribunal in Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Vs CCE Ranchi [2008 (230) ELT 179]. Since the assessees cannot be faulted with debiting their CENVAT credit account on consignment basis, the demand and penalty are not sustainable and we accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal without pronouncing on the arguments raised by ld. counsel for the appellants that the show-cause notice did not raise any duty demand and that the Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the scope of even the adjudication order.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
5