Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Chennai (For S.No.1 To 4) vs ) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd on 18 February, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/150/07 to E/153/07 & E/282/07
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.11, 12, 13 & 14/2007
(M-II) and 14/2007 (P) all dated 19.1.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.KARTHIKEYAN, 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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
CCE Chennai (for S.No.1 to 4)
CCE Pondicherry (For S.No.5)
Appellants
Versus
1) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
2) Nelcast Ltd.
3) Modforge Ltd.
4) Axles India Ltd.
5) Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance:
Shri Parthasarathy, Advocate (For S.No.1) Shri P.C.Anand, Consultant (For S.No.2) None (For S.No.3) Ms. Sri Devi, Advocate (for S.No.4) Sri Parthasarathy, Advocate (for S.No.5) Shri M.K.A.K.Mohiddin, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr.P.Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 18.2.2009 Date of decision : 18.2.2009 Final Order No.____________ These are appeals filed by the Revenue. The impugned order vacated demanded interest and penalties imposed on the respondents The respondents had removed credit availed inputs as such and paid applicable duty under Rule 3 (5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the 5th of the succeeding months of removal. The original authority had found that the respondents were liable to pay interest on the duty due on the inputs for the period between the date of removal and the date of payment of the applicable duty namely 5th of the succeeding month of removal of the inputs. Penalty also was imposed in each case. M/s.Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. M/s.Nelcast Ltd. & M/s.Axles India are represented by their counsel. The counsel submits that the dispute stands decided in their favour vide Final Order No.20 to 27/09 dt. 1.1.09 of this Tribunal. I have also heard the ld. JDR who does not dispute the submission by the counsel.
2) On a careful consideration of the facts of this case. I find that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the following decisions of the Tribunal :-
1) KLRF Textiles Vs CE Tirunelveli 2005 (188 ELT 169 (Tri.-Chennai)
2) CCE Raigad Vs Pidilite Industries Ltd.
2006-TIOL-649-CESTAT Mumbai.
In the above decisions, the Tribunal had held that the facility extended to manufactures of excisable goods to discharge their duty liability on final products removed on the 5th of the succeeding month was available also in respect of inputs and capital goods removed as such. The Revenue has no case that these decisions were since superceded or stayed by a superior court. More over, the Revenue has not cited any provision in the Act or Rules which otherwise authorizes the Revenue to recover interest for not paying amount equal to credit availed on inputs at the time of removal. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. The appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) MEMBER (T) gs 2