Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Jct Electronics Ltd on 21 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 DIVISION BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/3334/2006-Ex(DB) [Arising out of the OIA No.624/CE/CHD/06 dated 13/07/2006 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.09.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, 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 would 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 Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Vs. M/s JCT Electronics Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Sh. R.K. Sharma, AR, for the appellant None, for the respondent CORAM:Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO.: 61415 / 2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL The Revenue is in appeal.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacturer of colour picture tube and paying Central Excise duty as applicable on the above said goods and are also availing cenvat credit. The respondent got themselves registered in terms of Rule 2 of the Customs (import of goods at concessional rate of duty for the manufacture of excisable goods) Rules 1996 to import the various inputs/raw materials at the concessional rate of duty for use in their factory premises for the manufacture of coloured picture tubes. The respondent also executed a bond for Rs. 10 Crores on 13.09.96 as required under Rule 4(3) of the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules 1996 and also subsequently executed various bonds from time to time. As per the provisions of Rule 4 of the said rules, a manufacturer who had imported the goods at the concessional rate of duty is required to use the same in their factory for further manufacture of their final product and was not allowed to be used for any other purpose outside the factory premises. The respondent had been filing and undertaking in their applications under Rule 4 of the Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996 that they will use the imported goods at the concessional rate of duty in their factory premises, situated at A-32, Indl. Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali and will not use for any other purpose. From the RT-12 returns for the period April to May 2001, it was observed that the respondent has cleared various inputs as such from their factory premises without providing any details in respect of these inputs, as these inputs have been cleared by the respondent as such which has not been used and imported at concessional rate of duty in their factory. Therefore, the respondent has contravened the provisions of Customs (IGCRDMEG) Rules, 1996. In this set of facts, a show cause notice was issued by invoking extended period of limitation. A show cause notice was adjudicated the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A). The Ld. Commissioner (A) after considering the submissions made by the respondent set aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before us.
3. Heard the ld. AR and considered the submission.
4. We examine the impugned order, in the impugned order the Ld. Commissioner (A) has observed as under:
The contention of the appellant is that though the goods in question were imported for the use in the manufacture of colour picture tube of their Mohali unit, but due to the closure of this unit they were not able to use the said inputs and as such they diverted the goods to their unit in Vadodra which were used in the manufacture of Colour Picture Tubes. Such goods were diverted to Vadodra unit only after giving proper intimation to the department vide their letters Nos. JEL/CPT/Excise/398 and 435 dated 16.05.2001 and 23.05.2001 wherein it was clearly intimated that they wish to stock-transfer these inputs to their Vadodra unit which is also manufacturing the same final product. Thus the Department was well aware of the fact of diverting the goods to their unit. Moreover, the use of the goods has been the same i.e. in the manufacture of the colour picture tubes only.
The above contention of the appellant seems to be quite correct and convincing in as much as the goods in question were diverted to their own unit by the appellant in Vadodra and were used in the final product i.e. Colour Picture Tubes, for which the said goods were imported. While diverting the goods in question under intimation to the Department, no objection was raised by the Department or the Appellant were not advised not to do so. In such a situation, I find no reason in demanding the differential duty on the imported goods and imposing the penalty.
Once the proper use of the goods in the specified final products have not been disputed by the Department, the exemption availed on the imported goods cannot be denied.
5. We also find that in the earlier period of the Ld. Commissioner (A) has also relied on the decision of the respondent own case for the earlier period the same issue. The said order of Ld. Commissioner (A) was challenged by the Revenue before this Tribunal and this Tribunal dismissed the Revenues appeal reported in 2010 (261) ELT 267 (Tri. Del.) and the said order of this Tribunal has been affirmed by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported in 2011 (267) ELT 41 (P&H).
6. In view of the above decision of the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in respondent own case of earlier period on identical issue which has been followed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Devender Singh) ( Ashok Jindal)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
rt
1
E/3334/2006
CCE, Chandigarh
Vs.
M/s JCT Electronics Ltd.