Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S.Ttk Health Care Ltd on 26 April, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. E/ 3096/2004-MUM. (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BPS (267) 94/2004 dated 30.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals ), Aurangabad. For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad :
Appellant VS M/s.TTK Health Care Ltd.
:
Respondent Appearance Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR) for Appellant None for respondent CORAM:
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 26/04/2013
Date of decision : 26/04/2013
ORDER NO.
\
Per : Ashok Jindal
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein demands confirmed as per show cause notice have been dropped by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the balance sheet for the period 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, the respondents have written off capital goods but not cleared from their factory. Revenue is of the view as they have written off the capital goods and inputs in the books of accounts therefore, they are liable to pay duty along with interest and penalties. The adjudication took place, demands as per the show cause notices were confirmed which were dropped by the Commissioner. Aggrieved from the same Revenue is before us.
3. Shri Navneet, Additional Commissioner (AR) submits that as respondents have written off these capital goods and inputs in their balance sheets, therefore, they are liable to pay duty, interest and penalty.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that Ld. Commissioner has recorded in his findings that these capital goods and inputs which have written of by the respondents in their balance sheets were still lying in their factory and duty is payable on the clearances of goods/inputs/capital goods. Therefore, as the goods have not cleared from the factory, duty is not payable. We, further find that whatever inputs cleared by the respondents they have paid duty on the same capital goods/inputs. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Revenues appeal. Therefore, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned order, the same is upheld.
5. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Pronounced in court on ..)
(P.K. Jain)
Member (Technical)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
Sm
??
??
??
??
3