Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Anutone Acoustics Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 9 January, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: E/COD/27479/2013 in E/27180/2013-SM E/Stay/27480/2013 in E/27180/2013-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/27180/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 134/2013 dated 14/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 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? Anutone Acoustics Ltd No.3a, ,sai Nirman, Visneswaraiah Industrial Area, Mahadevapura Post, BANGALORE - 560048 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I Commissionerate, POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 560 001. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Vijaya Prakash, Advocate S. RAGHU ADV NO.543, 12TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE 560 078 For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 09/01/2015 Date of Decision: 09/01/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Misc. Order & Stay Order No.20164-20165/2015 Final Order No. 20046 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Appreciating the reason for delay of 23 days in filing the present appeal, I condone the same.
2. Further, I find that Commissioner (A) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the stay order directing the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakhs out of the total demand of Rs.7 lakhs approximately. The said demand stands confirmed in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules at the rate of 10% of the value of the final exempted goods.
2. It is seen that the appellant have already reversed the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,76,802/- involved in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. In such a scenario, the confirmation of demand is not justified. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (A) for decision on merits without insisting on any further pre-deposit. The COD, Stay as also appeal get disposed of in above manner.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv