Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 6 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. 796 of 2006
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. Commissioner/RPR/55/2005 dated 28.11.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur (CG)]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, 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?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
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. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent Raipur
Appearance:
Shri Vipul Agarwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri Yogesh Agarwal, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision: 06.06.2016 FINAL ORDER NO . 52079 /2016 Per Archana Wadhwa:
The challenge in the present appeal is only to the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,08,88,166/- imposed upon the appellant in terms of provisions of Rule 57 U(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, inasmuch as they have been permitted by the High Powered Committee only to challenge penalty and not to challenge the confirmation of demand of identical amount confirmed by reversing the modvat credit.
2. After hearing both sides, duly represented by Shri Vipul Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Yogesh Agarwal, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we find that the appellant, who are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, during the relevant period were availing the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty on bins. The said bins were being manufactured by M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works and were being classified by them under heading 8474.90. If that be so, the appellant, who was procuring the said bins from M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works, were entitled to the benefit of Cenvat Credit inasmuch as Chapter 84 was one of the specified items in the definition of capital goods as appearing under Rule 56 Q of Central Excise Rules.
3. However, Revenue doubted the correctness of the said classification adopted by M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works at their end and initiated proceeding for confirmation of differential duty against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works, on the ground that the bins were correctly classifiable under 73.08. If the correct classification of the bin is under 73.08 as proposed by the Revenue, the appellant would become disentitled to the benefit of the cenvat credit. Inasmuch as M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works as also the appellant fall under the same jurisdiction of Central Excise officer, common proceedings were initiated against both of them by way of issue of show cause notice dated 3.9.2002 proposing confirmation of demand against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works for the period April, 2000 to August, 2001 and proposing the denial of cenvat credit to the present appellant i.e. M/s. Bhilai Steel Plant.
4. The said show cause notice culminated into passing of common order passed by Commissioner confirming the demand against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works and denying the cenvat credit to the present appellant along with imposition of penalty upon both the appellants.
5. It is seen that appeal filed by M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order No. 52733/2015 dated 18.8.2015 and the impugned order against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works was set aside on the point of limitation. Inasmuch the same order, which stand set aside by the Tribunal, is impugned in the present proceedings, learned Advocate submits that there is no justifiable reason for imposition of penalty upon the appellant inasmuch as the benefit of limitation stand extended by the Tribunal to M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works.
6. We have gone through the above referred order vide which the benefit of limitation stand extended to M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works. It stand observed by the said order that M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works has filed the declaration classifying various types of bins as falling under heading 8474.90 and the said classification declaration stand accepted by the Revenue. It further stand held that in these circumstances, allegation of suppression cannot be held sustainable against M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works.
If that be so, the appellant having availed the cenvat credit on the basis of documents received by them from M/s. Simplex Engineering & Foundry Works showing the classification as falling under 8474.90, no malafide can also be attributable to them,. In such a scenario, imposition of penalty upon them is not called for. Accordingly, penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. Inasmuch as they have not been granted permission to pursue the appeal in respect of denial of credit, the said part of the impugned order is not being interfered with.
7. Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( V Padmanabhan)
Member(Technical)
ss
3