Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Schaeffler India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 5 November, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No. 40771 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2017 dated 30.11.2017 passed by Commissioner of
GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
M/s. Schaeffler India Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Formerly known as Luk India Private Limited,
Survey No. 1005,
C/O. Gati Kintetsu Express Private Ltd.,
Krishnagiri Highway,
Chennathur,
Hosur - 635 109.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Salem Commissionerate, No. 1, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem - 636 001.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri S. Durairaj, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Anoop Singh, Authorised Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No. 41401 / 2024 DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2024 DATE OF DECISION: 05.11.2024 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO Excise Appeal No. E/40771/2018 has been filed by the M/s.
Schaeffler India Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Luk India Pvt. Ltd.), Hosur assailing the Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2017 dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office @Salem which has rejected the Assessee's appeal on the ground of 2 non-compliance of payment of pre-deposit as required under provisions of Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2.1 Brief facts of the appeal are M/s. Schaeffler India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur, who were registered with the Central Excise Department are engaged in the activities of packing/ re-packing/ labelling/ re-labelling/ affixing of new MRP on the goods 'Clutches' for Automobiles falling under CETH 87089300 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 which amounts to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Appellant is availing CENVAT credit on the clutches received for the above activities. During the period 01.04.2012 to 09.05.2012 the Appellant had wrongly availed credit in contravention of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 in respect of some consignments on which they had not carried out any activities amounting to manufacture. Hence a Show Cause Notice (SCN) No. 32/2013 dated 29.04.2013 was issued to the Appellant demanding an amount of Rs.1,70,46,634/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A(1)/11A(5) of CEA, 1944 along with interest besides proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. The Show Cause Notice also proposed to demand Rs.33,53,720/- accumulated on exports which was adjusted from the ineligible CENVAT credit for payment of duty under Section 11AA of CEA, 1944 along with interest besides proposal for penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2.2 After the due process of adjudication, the Order-in-Original No. 22/2017 (CE) dated 29.03.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III Commissionerate had confirmed the demand of wrongly availed credit of Rs.1,70,46,634/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read 3 with Section 11A(1) of CEA, 1944 along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,70,46,634/- under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. The LAA also confirmed the demand of Rs.33,53,720/- which was utilized by the Appellant by adjusting the ineligible CENVAT credit for payment of duty on clearance as non- payment of duty along with interest but refrained from imposing penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002.
2.3 Being aggrieved by the above Order-in-Original dated 29.03.2017, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Chennai which was taken up for adjudication by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office @Salem due to jurisdictional changes effected by the Notification No. 2/2017-CE dated 19.06.2017. The above appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), Coimbatore, Circuit Office @ Salem was dismissed for non-compliance of payment of pre-deposit in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of AI Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata - IV [2016 (342) ELT 137 (Tri.-Kolkata)] which has held as under: -
"6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the Tribunal or Commissioner shall not entertain any appeal under Section 35 unless the appellant has made pre-deposit of applicable amount mentioned in the said provision. Therefore, in terms of the amended Section 35F of CEA, 1944 w.e.f. 6th August, 2014, this Tribunal is barred from entertaining any appeal unless pre-deposit as mentioned in Section 35F is complied with. It is a cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that while incorporating a statute or a provision into the existing statute, the Legislatures are fully aware of the position of law as was prevailing on the date of new legislation or bringing the change into the existing legislation. We find the law, i.e., amended Sec. 35F of CEA, 1944 is very clear and unambiguous and the intention of the Legislature is also loudly made clear about its applicability. Needless to emphasize, the Tribunal is a creature of the statute and accordingly bound by the statute as has been held recently by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Maa Mahamaya India Ltd. v. CCE, C & ST, Vishakhapatnam-I - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 244 (A.P.). Also, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench at Mumbai in M/s. Bhatia Global Trading Ltd. v. Commissioner Customs (Preventive), Mumbai (supra) has dismissed the appeals filed after 6-8-2014 for non-compliance with the statutory 4 requirement of pre-deposit. In view of the above, these appeals are not maintainable and accordingly, the same are dismissed."
3.1 The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Durairaj representing the Appellant has submitted that the Appellant which is Unit II is engaged in the activities of packing/ re-packing/ labelling/ re-labelling/ affixing of new MRP on the goods 'clutches' for automobiles falling under CETH 87089300 which amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Sl.No. 100 of Schedule-III of CETA, 1985 and Sl.No. 108 of Notification No. 49/2008-(NT) dated 24.12.2008 and assessments were under Section 4A- MRP assessment. He has further submitted that: -
i. Even if there is no manufacturing process undertaken by the Appellant, it would have to be treated as clearance of CENVAT credit availed inputs as such, which can be cleared on payment of duty equal to the CENVAT credit availed.
ii. Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 provides that when the CENVAT credit availed inputs are cleared as such, an amount equal to the CENVAT credit required to be paid and in the instant case (i) an amount of Rs.1,36,92,914/- was paid/utilised for payment of duty on home clearances on the impugned goods removed as such which is equal to the CENVAT credit availed and (ii) Rs.33,53,720/- was accumulated consequent to export of goods removed as such, which has been used for payment of duty on other clearances, which is within the framework of law.
iii. Further, Rule 16 of CER, 2002 permits taking credit of duty paid on the goods brought to any other reason, treating the same as inputs under CCR, 2004, and utilize this credit according to the said rules. If the activity to which the goods are subjected before being removed does 5 not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken on such goods. In the instant case, assuming that the said activity is not amounting to manufacture, the Appellant were required to pay duty equal to credit taken and they had paid duty equal to the credit taken and hence, the Appellant's case is also covered under this rule.
iv. The Appellant relied on the decisions of Commission vs. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 785(Guj)] affirmed by SC [243 ELT A 120 (SC), Shree Rubber Plast Co (P) Ltd vs. CCE [2016 (336) ELT 313 (Tri.
Mum)], Crompton Greaves Ltd vs. CCE, Mumbai - III [2008 (230) ELT 488], Vickers Systems International Ltd vs. CCE, Pune -1[2008 (229) ELT 298 (Tri-Mum)].
v. Even though the Appellant had heavily banked on the provisions of Rule 3(5) and 5 of CCR, 2004 and Rule 16 of CER, 2002 in their reply to the SCN dated 24.1.2017, there is no discussion in the order of Lower Authority as to how the provisions of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 and Rule 16 of CER, 2002 are not applicable to the Appellant's case and hence it is not a speaking order. Similarly, Appellant had claimed that the credit was utilized for payment of duty at the time of clearances of the same goods on which credit was taken. But, the Original Authority had not given any findings about the payment of duty at the time of clearances of such goods.
3.2 Thus, it is summarised that during the period from 01.04.2012 to 09.05.2012, Unit-II received the clutches from Unit-I on payment of duty under MRP. Unit-II took credit and cleared the clutches as such on payment of duty. Whereas, the Show Cause Notice No. 32/2013 dated 29.04.2013 6 denied the credit of Rs.1,70,46,634/- by alleging that there is no manufacture.
3.3 Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.71/2017-SLM-CEX dated 31.11.2017, the Appellant preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. Appellant claimed that the amount of Rs. 1,36,92,914/-, which was already paid, must be treated as pre-deposit since the credit was not utilized for any other purpose but utilized for the payment of duty on the same goods for which the credit was denied. Appeal was admitted in Appeal No:
E/40771/2018-DB. However, for the appeal for the earlier period from September 2010 to March 2012, which was filed subsequently, defect was raised for non-payment of deposit. Appellant was heard on 11.8.2022 and the Bench decided that pre-deposit should be paid. Appellant sought time to pay the pre deposit and accordingly paid the pre deposit. Appeal was numbered as 40067 of 2023. Since the current issue is for the subsequent period, Appellant had paid the pre-deposit of Rs.20,40,036/- on 10.10.2024 as mentioned above.
3.4 It has also been informed that the Tribunal for the earlier period (Sep 2010 to March 2012) has decided the issue in favour of the Appellant.
In the Final Order No. 43004/2018 dated 08.10.2018, the Tribunal Chennai has set aside the ancillary demand of Rs.90,85,559/- which is like the ancillary demand of Rs.33,53,220/- in the current appeal. Further, the Tribunal has held that no reversal is required for the exports. The main demand, which was remanded, was also decided in Appellant' favour in Final Order No. FO/A/40187/2024-EX dated 21.02.2024, wherein the main demand of Rs.11,54,59,277/- was set aside, which is like the main demand 7 of Rs.1,70,46,634/- in the current appeal. The Tribunal has held that once the Department has collected the duty on the finished products, the credit availed on the inputs cannot be denied alleging that the activity does not amount to manufacture. Verification reports of the Range Officers in the reports dated 07.08.2013 which confirmed the duty payments for both the periods were duly considered by the Tribunal.
4. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Anoop Singh appeared for the Department and affirmed the reasoning of the Lower Appellate Authority as to non-admissibility of the appeal filed by the Appellant for non- payment of pre-deposit. He has prayed for rejection of the appeal filed.
5. Heard both sides and considered the written submissions and also the Tribunal Final Order. 40187/2024 dated 21.02.2024 in the Appellant's own case.
6. The main issue that is required to be determined in this appeal is whether the Appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the clutches received from their Unit 1 when there is no process of manufacturing involving packing or re-packing of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer as contemplated in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
8
7. Before taking up the above issue for determination, we find that the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2017 dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore, Circuit Office @Salem has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant for non-payment of pre-deposit. On the issue of pre-deposit involved in this appeal, we find that: -
i. Appellant claimed that the amount of Rs.1,36,92,914/-, which was already paid, has to be treated as a pre-deposit since the credit was not utilized for any other purpose but utilized for the payment of duty on the same goods for which the credit was denied. However, the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the issue is regarding ineligible credit and not the payment of duty on the clearance of goods.
ii. The Ld. Counsel has put forth that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable on the issue of pre-deposit in view of the decision rendered in the case of Neel Kamal Polytex Industries Vs CCE, Bhopal [2012 (286) ELT 392] wherein it was held that: -
"6. The case of the department is that the process undertaken by the appellant unit i.e. printing of polypropylene woven bags does not amount to manufacture and hence they are not eligible for Cenvat credit. However, Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that when the Cenvat credit availed inputs are cleared as such, an amount equal to the Cenvat credit required to be paid. Then even if the department's stand that process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture is accepted, this would have to be treated as clearance of Cenvat credit availed input as such. Since the appellant have paid duty on the printed P.P. bags the Cenvat credit availed would have to be treated as reversed. In view of this, impugned order demanding the Cenvat credit along with interest and imposed penalty on the appellant is set aside. The appeal and stay application are allowed."9
iii. The ratio of the above decision was also relied in the case of Ras Polytex (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013 (290) ELT 244 (Tri.- Del.)] as follows: -
"5. We have considered the rival submissions. In this case the appellant had taken Cenvat credit of the duty on polypropylene bags and treating these process of printing of plain bags as amounting to manufacture, had paid duty on the transaction value of the printed bags. It is not disputed that the duty paid on printed bags is more than the Cenvat credit availed in respect of inputs. Even if department's contention that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture is accepted, it would amount to clearance of cenvated inputs as such in respect of which the provision of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would be applicable and in respect of such clearances an amount equal to the Cenvat credit taken would be payable. In this case there is no dispute that in respect of clearances of printed bags, an amount more than the Cenvat credit availed has been paid. In view of this, we are of view that there is no justification for Cenvat credit demand. The impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The Appeal and stay application of the Appellant is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed."
iv. The ratio of the above two decisions would justify the payment of Rs.1,36,92,914/- as payment of pre-deposit and also the case is in favour of the Appellant on merits.
We have gone through these decisions and the ratio of these decisions is more applicable to the instant appeal more on merits as these decisions were rendered to stay the proceedings initiated. However, in this appeal, an amount of Rs.20,40,036/- has been paid toward the pre-deposit vide challan dated 10.10.2024 and as such the appeal was admitted and taken up for decision.
8. The admitted facts are that the Appellant is engaged in the activities of packing/ re-packing/ labelling/ re-labelling/ affixing of new MRP on the goods 'Clutches' procured from their vendors which amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which were cleared on payment of duty under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, in respect of the goods procured from their Unit 10 1 from 01.04.2012 to 09.05.2012 which were not subjected to the above process as contemplated under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and as such, they could not considered as inputs and the credit taken on such items is not in accordance with the law and they are not eligible for the CENVAT credit availed to an extent of Rs.1,70,46,634/- was the stand of the Revenue for initiation of these proceedings against the Appellant.
9. We find that for the earlier period in the Appellant's own case, the Tribunal Chennai has passed an order vide Final Order No. 40187/2024 dated 21.02.2024 allowing the Appellant's appeal. The facts being identical, the decision is squarely applicable. The relevant portion of the decision is as given below: -
"3.1. The issue to be considered is whether the demand raised alleging that the credit availed by the appellant is ineligible for the reason that there is no manufacturing process undertaken by the appellant on goods received from Unit I and cleared by them is sustainable or not. The facts reveal that the appellant has paid duty on all goods cleared by them. The allegation of the department is that the goods received from Unit 1 are complete as to their packing and fixation of MRP. Therefore, there is no activity of manufacture undertaken by the appellant so as to packing or relabelling and there is no activity of deemed manufacture as per 2 f (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Ld. counsel has argued that they do fixation of MRP, labelling etc. and therefore the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture.
3.2. The issue is only with regard to the eligibility of credit availed on the goods cleared from Unit 1 to Unit 2. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant has cleared all goods from unit 2 by payment of duty. When the department has collected duty on the finished products, the credit availed on the inputs cannot be denied alleging that the activity does not amount to manufacture. This issue is settled by the decisions in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held as under.
"10. Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T), Super Forgings - 2007 (217) E.L.T.559 (T), S.A.I.L. - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (T) = 2009 (15) S.T.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167(T) and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department. CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Admittedly, similar view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative 11 Enterprises has been upheld by the Apex Court [see 2009 (243) E.L.T. A 121] by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue."
3.3. The Tribunal in the case of "Domino Printech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST Gurgaon, Haryana 2019-TIOL-3428-CESTAT-Chandigarh" had occasion to consider similar issue and observed as under:
"11. We find that the imported ink container, the appellant has availed credit of CVD paid by them on the premise that the activity of refilling / relabelling. As discussed above, as per Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 32, the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail credit of CVO paid by them at time of import. But as per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra), by upholding the finding of this Tribunal that if the activity does not amount to manufacture and the goods have been cleared on payment of duty, in such case, the duty paid by the assessee which has been accepted by the department and more than the credit availed. In that circumstances, the duty paid by the assessee shall amount to reversal of credit and the assessee is not required to reverse the credit. Admittedly in this case, the appellant cleared the said imported goods after refilling on payment of duty. Therefore, if the activity does not amount to manufacture, in that case, the duty paid by the appellant shall amount to reversal of credit. Therefore, the appellant is not required to reverse the credit of CVD availed by the appellant at the time of import."
3.4. In the case of M/s. R K Packaging Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2019-TIOL-988- CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue considered was whether the credit availed has to be reversed when the activity is alleged to be not manufacture. The demand was set aside by the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ajinkya Enterprises. The relevant para reads as under:
"5. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. The short issue involved for determination in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit of duty paid on various inputs used in or in relation to assembly of packing kits, on which appropriate duty was paid by the appellant. The Revenue proposed to deny the credit only on the ground that the assembly of various inputs into packing kits does not amount to manufacture. However, there is no dispute of fact that appropriate duty has been paid and collected by the Revenue on the packing kits. The issue, in our view, is no more res integra and covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra) and dealing the similar issue the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held as under:-
"10 Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it is held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the decoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T) = 2008- TIOL-312-CESTAT-MAD "Super Forgings 2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T) = 2007-TIOL-2040-CESTAT-MAD 12 "S.A.I.L 2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (1) 2009 (15) ST.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T 167 (T) = 2004-TIOL-77-CESTAT-DEL and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj.) = 2008-TIOL-784-HC- AHM-CX has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture. Admittedly, similar view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative Enterprises has been upheld by the Apex Court (see 2009 (243) E.L.T. A121) by dismissing the SLP Bled by the Revenue."
6. In view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the impugned order is devoid of merit and consequently, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law."
3.5. Similarly, in the case of M/s. Tristar Enterprises Vs. CCE Mumbai, 2019-TIOL-3247-CESTAT, Mumbai, it was held that once duty is paid on finished products and accepted by the department, the CENVAT credit availed on the inputs need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture.
"5. We have carefully considered the submissions advance by both sides. The short issue involved in the present appeal for determination is whether the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit of duty paid on raw materials which were processed and resulted into finished product and cleared on payment of duty. The allegation of the Revenue is that since the process of manufacture undertaken on the raw material did not amount to 'manufacture', within the definition of Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, hence, the appellant was not required to discharge duty, accordingly, not entitled to avail credit on the inputs. We find that the issue is no more res integra being covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ajinkya Enterprises (supra). The Lordships, after taking note of the relevant provisions of law, observed as follows:-
"10. Apart from the above, in the present case, the assessment on decoiled HR/CR coils cleared from the factory of the assessee on payment of duty has neither been reversed nor it held that the assessee is entitled to refund of duty paid at the time of clearing the deoiled HR/CR coils. In these circumstances, the CESTAT following its decision in the case of Ashok Enterprises- 2008 (221) E.L.T. 586 (T) = 2008-TIOL-312-CESTAT-MAD.
'Super Forgings-2007 (217) E.L.T. 559 (T) 2007-TIOL 2040-CESTAT-MAD 'S.A.L.L.-2007 (220) E.L.T. 520 (T) 2009 (15) ST.R. 640 (Tribunal), M.P. Telelinks Limited - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 167 (T) = 2004-TIOL-77-CESTAT-DEL and a decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE v. Creative Enterprises reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 785 (Guj)=2008-TIOL-784-HC AHM- CX 13 has held that once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, CENVAT credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity docs not amount to manufacture. Admittedly, similar view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Creative Enterprises has been upheld by the Apex Court (see 2009 (243) E.L.T. A121] by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue."
5.1 The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also been followed by this Tribunal in a number of cases including in t case of Shripad Engineering Works (supra). Also, the demand under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is untenable in law in view the ratio laid down in Shivam Metals case (supra).
6. Thus, following the aforesaid precedents, we do not find merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law."
4. After considering the facts, evidence and following the decisions as above, we are of the opinion that the demand cannot sustain and requires to be set aside."
10. After appreciating the above decision in the Appellant's own case, we cannot sustain the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2017 dated 30.11.2017 of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore, Circuit Office @Salem, and so ordered to be set aside. Thus, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 05.11.2024)
Sd/- Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MK