Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Cadila Healthcare. Ltd vs C.C.E. Bharuch on 8 January, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/12102-12104/2017-SM [Arising out of OIA No. - VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-337-2017-18 dated 22.08.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara] [Arising out of OIA No. - VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-331-2017-18 dated 22.08.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara] [Arising out of OIA No. - VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-332-2017-18 dated 22.08.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara] M/s Cadila Healthcare. Ltd. Appellant Vs C.C.E. Bharuch Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri H. D. Dave (Advocate) For Respondent: Shri. L. Patra (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:08.01.2018 Final Order No. A/ 10083-10085 /2018 Per: M.V. Ravindran These three appeals are directed against order-in-appeal Nos. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-337-2017-18, VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-331-2017-18 and VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-332-2017-18 dated 22.08.2017.
2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration after filtering out unnecessary details are appellant is contesting the orders before Tribunal on the ground that lower authorities have erred in appropriating the amounts of rebate claims which are sanctioned to them. It is noticed from the records that appellants had filed few appeals before the First Appellate Authority when the Provisions of Section 35F was amended in Central Excise Act, 1944 mandating the requirement of pre-deposit of an amount of 7.5% of the disputed duty liability. Appellants seems, deposited the same amount in the appeals which they contested, by a debit entry in cenvat account. The First Appellate Authority did not agree with such debits and held that this debit does not tantamount to compliance of Provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, by a letter dated V-II-SB-VAD-APP-II/SRT-II/004/2014-15 dated 28.11.2014 informed the appellant that appeals filed by them are not entertained in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as amended) and consequently, they are being disposed of. Subsequently, the appellant filed various applications for rebate claim of excise duty paid on the goods exported. These rebate claims were sanctioned and the adjudicating authority appropriated the amount so sanctioned against the demands which were raised and confirmed and the appeals which were disposed of by the First Appellate Authority by a letter dated 28.11.2014 (as cited herein above). Against such appropriation, the appellants are preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was rejected.
3. Ld. Counsel submits that the letter dated 28.11.2014 of the First Appellate Authority being not a speaking order was not challenged by the appellant before any higher authorities but subsequently some correspondence were entered with the First Appellate Authority wherein it is contested that debit through cenvat account is a correct procedure followed for compliance with Provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is his submission that in these appeal they have contested the action of the First Appellate Authority of disposing of the appeal by a letter dated 28.11.2014.
4. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities.
5. In my considered view, appellant has no case in appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order. It is an admitted fact that on 28.11.2014, the First Appellate Authority had disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant as not being entertained in terms of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. In the impugned order, the First Appellate Authority was correct in come to a conclusion that the appropriation of the amounts sanctioned for the rebate claims filed by the appellant is in accordance with the law. In my view, the findings of the First Appellate Authority in these appeals cannot be faulted with and they are right.
6. The impugned orders are upheld as correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeals stands disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Neha 2 | Page E/12102-12104/2017-SM