Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd vs Cc&Ce, Hyderabad-Iv on 7 June, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Bench DB Court I Appeal No.E/843/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.22/2009 dt. 10/12/2009 passed by CC&CE, Hyderabad) For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellant(s) Vs. CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV ..Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.P. Rao, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Date of Hearing:20/05/2016 Date of decision:.
FINAL ORDER No._______________________ [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] This is an appeal filed by M/s. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd., Balanagar (the appellant) against the impugned Order-in-Original No.22/2009 dt. 10/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate wherein he has confirmed a total amount of (Rs.1,19,24,718/-) being Rs.55,89,165/- for the year 2007-08 and Rs.63,35,553/- for the year 2008-09 under Rule 3(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004; interest as per provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A and 11AB of Central Excise Act and penalty on amount of duty under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 have also been levied. The above confirmation has been made on the ground that the CENVAT credit cannot be availed on special additional duty (SAD) on imported inputs/capital goods which was paid against various licenses obtained under DFEC, DEPB and Target Plus scheme since SAD in such cases is not paid in cash but debited to respective license.
2. The learned counsel for appellant Shri Karan Talwar submitted that the issue is covered by the judgment in their own case as well as other cases, which are as under:-
i. Tecumseh Products India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2010(256) ELT 276 (Tri. Bang.)] ii. CC&CE, Hyderabad-IV Vs. RCC Sales (P) Ltd.
[2012(281) ELT 682 (AP)] iii. International Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad [2013(297) ELT 131 (Tri. Del.)] iv. CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
[2010(261) ELT 594 (Tri. Bang.)] v. CCE, Chennai Vs. SPIC Ltd.
[2014(305) ELT 484 (Mad.)] vi. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007(217) ELT 562 (Tri. Chennai)]
3. Following the ratio laid in the above cases including the case of appellant, we hold that the demand is unsustainable. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. (Pronounced in open court on .) MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR MEMBER(TECHNICAL) SULEKHA BEEVI C.S. MEMBER(JUDICIAL) Raja.
3