Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Hetero Drugs Ltd. (Unit-Iv) vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 20395 - 20396 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/26215/2013, E/Stay/26216/2013 in E/25918/2013, E/25919/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/25918/2013, E/25919/2013-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 154/2012 dated 18/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I & III] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 155/2012 dated 18/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I & III] Hetero Drugs Ltd. (Unit-IV) Unit-1, Sy. No. 213, 214 & 214 & 215, Bonthapally Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak Dist. 502 319 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Hetero Drugs Limited Unit I Sy No. 213, 214 & 215, Bonthapally Village, Jinnaram Mandal Medak Dist. - 502 319 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Hyderabad-I Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. Vidyadhar Reddy, Advocate M/s. Quest Com Consultancy Services, H. No. 8-2-598/A/7, 1st Floor, Road No.10 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034 Andhra Pradesh For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 24/03/2014 Date of Decision: 24/03/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The appellant received ethanol on which central excise duty was paid by the suppliers. On the ground that appellant should not have taken credit since ethanol was not liable to excise duty, proceedings were initiated for recovery of such credit taken.
2. Since in any case the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeals for final decision.
3. In this case the Commissioner has demanded 100% of the duty demanded as pre-deposit and because of failure to deposit the amount, appeal has been rejected. Since we find that on this issue there are several decisions taking a view that credit cannot be denied on the ground that the supplier was not liable to pay duty and one of them in the case of M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. was cited before us wherein in Stay Order No. 1655/2012 dated 17.09.2012 this Tribunal took the view that there is no need for pre-deposit to hear the appeal. Accordingly in this case also in our opinion the Commissioner should not have required the appellant to make any pre-deposit to hear the appeal. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a request to hear the appeals without insisting on any pre-deposit. In the result, both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss