Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad vs Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd on 4 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.II Appeal No. E/234/07 & E/CO/104/07 (Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AT/692/RGD/2006 dated 9.11.06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) ====================================================
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Appellant Vs. Alkyl Amines Chemicals Ltd. Respondent Appearance:
Shri N.A. Sayed, JDR for the appellant Shri Dr. D.M. Misra, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 4.1.2008 Date of decision: 4.1.2008 O R D E R No:..
Per: Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) This is revenues appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has sustained the demand regarding denial of the cenvat on capital goods on which the respondent have claimed depreciation under Income tax. The revenues appeal is against the reduction of penalty imposed by the original authority.
2. The learned advocate for the respondent brings to my notice that against the same impugned order they had filed an appeal and their appeal was decided by Tribunal order no. A/547/07/CIV/SMB dated 20.3.2007 under which the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to look into the certificate by the income tax authority as per their revised return filed by them in which depreciation has not been claimed by them. As a consequence of remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed order no. SRK/RGD/10/2007 dated 6.7.2007 wherein their plea that depreciation has not been claimed has been accepted and demand has been dropped. In view of this, it was submitted that the departments appeal has become infructuous and therefore should be dismissed.
3. I have considered the submissions. I find that the revenues appeal is against reduction of penalty on the respondent whereas the very demand for which the penalty has been imposed has now been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) cited above. Since the very demand has been set aside, the revenues appeal has now become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. The cross objection is also accordingly disposed of.
(Dictated in Court) K.K.Agarwal Member (Technical) sr