Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hero Cycles Ltd vs C.C.E., Ludhiana on 24 August, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-IV Date of hearing/decision: 24.8.2009 Stay Application No.1183 of 2009 and Central Excise Appeal No.1185 of 2009 Arising out of the order in appeal No.83/CE/Ldh/09 dated 30.3.09 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh. For Approval and Signature: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. . Appellant/applicant Vs. C.C.E., Ludhiana . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant/applicant Shri R.K. Saini, Authorized Departmental Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Oral Order No.____________________ Per M. Veeraiyan :
Heard both sides on the stay petition for a while and it was felt expedient to dispose of the appeal finally , the pre-deposit is waived and the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. It is submitted that CRD, a Division of Hero Cycles Ltd. supplied CR strips and steel tubes to their other unit manufacturing cycles paying duty at the rate of 16% even though the rate of duty was reduced to 8% vide Notification No.16/2004 dated 28.2.2004. The submission of the appellant was that the cycle division has not taken any credit as they were not required to pay duty on the final product, namely, the bicycles. Such submission has been made in reply to the notice and the same has not been dealt with. The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs.1,35,445/- and imposed equal amount as penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) without deciding the case on merits dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order dated 28.1.2009 by which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.70,000/- towards duty and Rs.70,000/- towards penalty.
3. The submission that the final product is not subject to duty and they have not taken any credit not to speak of credit on the higher rate goes to the root of the dispute. Since this requires factual verification ,it is felt appropriate that the matter is considered afresh. To enable the same, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the order of the original authority and remand the matter to the original authority. The appellant is free to make further written submissions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and the original authority shall dispose of the matter afresh within 2 months thereafter after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is clarified that no views are expressed on the merits of the case.
4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed.
(M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) scd/