Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Monga Brothers Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 25 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 25/07/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 25/07/2014. Excise Appeal No. 3642 of 2005 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 374/CE/APPL/LDH/2005 dated 26/08/2005 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ludhiana.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, 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 would 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 : Department Authorities? M/s Monga Brothers Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Ludhiana Respondent
Appearance Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53131/2014 Dated : 25/07/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were working under compounded levy scheme and were discharging their duty liability under Rule 96 ZP of the erswhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Apart from the above products, the appellant were also manufacturing cycle parts which were exempted from duty.
2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to the exemption in respect of waste, pairing and scrap arising during the manufacture and exempted goods from a factory. Notification No. 89/1995-CE dated 18/05/95 exempts such exempts pairing and scrap. However as per proviso to the said notification, exemption is not available to a factory in which any other excisable goods other than exempted goods are also manufactured.
3. In as much as the appellant are manufacturing Iron Steel Ingots, which were not exempted, they were not entitled to the benefit of notification, in question. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of a show cause notice dated 16/02/04 proposing confirmation of demand of duty of Rs. 1,04,727/- in respect of 105.785 M.T. of scrap cleared by them during the period 01/09/97 to 31/03/2000. The appellant assailed the said proposal on the point of limitation as also on merits. However, the same was not accepted by the original Adjudicating Authority, who confirmed the demand alongwith imposition of penalty of identical amount. The order of the original Adjudicating Authority was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).
Hence, the present appeal.
4. Admittedly the demand stands raised by invoking this longer period of limitation. It is on record that the appellants were filing RT-12 returns showing clearance of M.S. Rounds, M.S. Flat as also M.S. Scrap and forging scrap. In the column rate of duty they were writing, full and final discharge of duty under Rule 96ZP. As such, the Revenue was aware that the appellant is also manufacturing the other goods which are chargeable to duty of excise under the compounded levy scheme. Even then, no objection was ever raised by the Department so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 89/1995-CE dated 18/05/95, in respect of waste and scrap was cleared by them. There is no positive evidence adduced by the Revenue so as to attribute any suppression or mis-statement with any malafide intention, in which case the longer period of limitation cannot be invoked. Accordingly, we hold that the demand is barred by limitation and set aside the impugned order on this ground. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court.) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3