Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Jaipur I vs Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd on 20 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 20.12.2016 Central Excise Appeal No.2768 of 2011 Arising out of the order-in-original No.42-44/2011 (CE)/Commissioner/293 dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur. C.C.E., Jaipur I .. Appellant Vs. Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri Yogesh Agarwal, A.R. for the Appellant-Revenue Present Mrs. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Final Order No.55984/2016 Per Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
The present appeal is filed by the Department against the Order-in-Original No.42-44/2011 dated 8.8.2011.The period in dispute is from March 2005 to December 2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is engaged in manufacture of telephone equipments, mainly Base Transreceiver Station, Switching apparatus for mobile/cellular telephony and minilinks, falling under Chapter 85 of the First Schedulle to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have imported various components from their Principal M/s Ericsson, Sweden and M/s Ericsson, China, free of basic customs duty under Sl.No.39 of Notification No.24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 as amended, subject to condition that the procedure as prescribed under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rulews, 1996 is followed. There is no dispute that the respondents were maintaining records as prescribed in Rule 8 of CCR, 1996.
3. During the period under consideration, certain disputes were raised by the Department for the relevant period, proposing recovery of excise duty amounting to Rs.2,88,52,271/- for contravention and invocation of Rule 8 of CCR, 1996. In the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner has given partial relief to the respondent assessee against which, the Department has filed the present appeal.
4. With this background, we have heard Shri Yogesh Agarwal, ld.A.R. for appellant-Revenue and Mrs. Sukriti Das, ld. Advocate for the respondent-assessee.
5. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that against the same impugned order, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal against the partial relief which was granted by the impugned order. The Tribunal vide its Final Order No.51192/2015 dated 8.4.2015 has partly allowed the claim of the assessee.
6. In the present appeal, the issue in the Departments appeal pertains to the duty amount of Rs.94,29,117/- which was related to duty drawback. The Tribunal has remanded the matter to the lower authority pertaining to the duty drawback on the amount in question. When the issue is restored pertaining to the duty drawback on the amount in question, we are of the view that the validity of duty demand of Rs.94,29,117/- also needs fresh adjudication. Hence, we modify the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower authority pertaining to the duty amount of Rs.94,29,117/- which is related to the confiscated goods and bonds thereof.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed by way of remand.
(V. Padmanabhan) (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra)
Technical Member President
scd/
Appeal No.E/2768/2011
1