Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Echjay Forging Pvt.Ltd on 9 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.E/38/05 & E/39/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.AT/M-III/100/2004 dated 23/09/2004 & AT/M-III/106/2004 dated 27/09/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) 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 :Yes 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? ========================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Appellant Mumbai Vs. Echjay Forging Pvt.Ltd., Amforge Industries Ltd., Respondent Appearance:
Shri.Navneet, Addl. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri.Prasad Paranjape, Advocate & Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for respondents CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Honble Mr.Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 09/05/2014 Date of Decision : 09/05/2014 ORDER NO Per: P.R.Chandrasekharan
1. The appeals have been filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal Nos.AT/M-III/100/2004 dated 23/09/2004 & AT/M-III/106/2004 dated 27/09/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai.
2. Vide the impugned order, the lower appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority confirming duty demands against the appellants, M/s.Echjay Forging Pvt. Ltd. & M/s.Amforge Industries Ltd. both on merits and also on account of time bar. Aggrieved of the same, the Revenue is before us.
3. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the challenge is against dropping of the demands on merits on the ground that benefit of Notification No.64/95-CE dated 16/03/1995 could not be extended to rough forgings of iron and steel. There is no challenge to the dropping of the demand on account of time bar.
4. The learned additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum.
5. The learned Counsels for the respondent submit that inasmuch as there is no challenge to the time bar and the demands have been dropped on account of time bar also apart from merit, the demands are not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Honble apex Court in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Balkrishna Industries - 2006 (201) ELT 325 (SC) wherein an issue arose where the appeal was filed challenging dropping of demand on account of time bar whereas the demands were dropped on merits by this Tribunal. In the said case since there was no challenge to dropping of demands on merits, the Apex Court held that the findings of the Tribunal on merits has to be upheld. Following the same in the present case, since there is no challenge to the time bar aspect by the Revenue, the appeals are not maintainable.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
6.1 We observe that there is no challenge by the Revenue with respect to the dropping of duty demands on account of time bar. Since there is no challenge in this regard, the finding of the lower appellate authority has to be upheld with respect to time bar. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly the same are dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) pj 1 3