Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Emco Ltd vs Commissioner Of Cen.Excise, ... on 12 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO.E/157/08
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.SRK/422/M.III/2007 dtd. 12.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(A),Mumbai )
For approval and signature:
Honble Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=============================================================
Emco Ltd.
:
Appellant
VS
Commissioner of Cen.Excise, Mumbai.III
Respondent
Appearance
Shri J.H. Motwani, Advocate for Appellant
Shri Ajay Saxena, Authorized Representative (DR)
CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Date of decision 12/05/08
ORDER NO.
Per : Jyoti Balasundaram
On hearing both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) allowing the appeal of the Revenue against the adjudication order, by which demand raised for Rs. 5,22,723/- and education cess of Rs. 10,454 was dropped, I find that the issue in dispute is no longer res-integra as it stands settled by the decision of the Tribunal in the assessees own case, as seen from Order No.A/887/2007/C.I dated 30.11.07 in which it was held as under:-
In this case, the adjudicating authority dropped the demand raised against the supplier f inputs (manufacturer of electric transformers) after being satisfied from verification that the job worker to whom inputs namely copper wire/rods had been sent for getting paper covered insulation and lamination and paid duty on removal of scrap which has arisen in the course of job work. This order was set aside by the Commissioner(Appeals) in an appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding that the adjudicating authority had not verified as to whether the job worker had paid duty on the scrap generated at their end. Irrespective of whether the job worker had discharged the duty liability on the scrap generated at this end, the duty liability cannot be fastened on the principal manufacturer/supplier of inputs in the light of the Honble Bombay High Court decision cited supra, upholding Tribunals order reported in 2005(191)ELT 483 which in turn relies upon the decision in the case of preetam Enterprises 2004(173)ELT 26 (Tribunal). The period in dispute in the present appeal is post 31.3.2000 which is the period covered by the Honble Bombay High Court decision cited supra. Following the ratio of the Honble Bombay High Court decision as cited herein above, we hold that the duty demand against the appellant herein, who is supplier of inputs cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
2. Following the ratio of the earlier order cited supra, which covers the period immediately prior to the period in the present appeal, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram Vice President pv 2