Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Coastal Steels Ltd on 14 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/Co/11/2004 & E/616/2002
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 99/2002 (M-II) dated 26.07.2002, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Coastal Steels Ltd., : Respondent
Appearance Shri R.P. Meena, SDR, for the appellant Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Shri P. KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 14.05.2009 Date of decision : 14.05.2009 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who while holding that battery boxes, lavatory inlays, door frames, seat frames supplied to Indian Railways and the Integral Coach Factory by the assessees were not semi finished goods but fully excisable goods, held that the demand was barred by limitation as the assessees were under a bonafide belief that the goods were not assessable to duty. The contention of the assessees that they had formed the belief that goods cleared by them were not excisable based upon the purchase order given by the Government Department viz. Indian railways - in the purchase order the railways categorically stated that excise duty is Nil. The Commissioner (A) in his findings stated that in the absence of any proof of malafide, the claim of the assessees that they were under bonafide belief that the purchases by the Indian Railways were not liable to duty, requires to be accepted as in the appeal filed by the revenue, there is no challenge to the acceptance by the Commissioner (A) of the assessees plea that they were under a bonafide belief and therefore no malafide with intention to evade payment of duty can be attributed to the assessees. In this view of the matter, the findings of the Commissioner (A) that the assessees were under bonafide belief and therefore the demand is time barred, has not been successfully challenged by the revenue. We therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
2. The cross objection filed by the assessees wherein they have challenged the findings of the Commissioner (A) that the goods sold to Indian Railways were saleable/marketable goods and were not semi finished goods is dismissed as no satisfactory explanation is adduced before the Bench to prove that the goods in question were semi finished goods.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(P. KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE PRESIDENT
BB
4