Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sri. Sandeep Fogla,Director, vs C.C, Ex - Kol Iii on 20 March, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Excise Appeal No. 72045 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 8/COMMR/CE/KOL-III/2012-13 dated
10.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III
Commissionerate, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
M/s. A.R. Stanchem Private Limited : Appellant
227/F, B.T. Road, Panihati,
District - 24 Parganas (North),
West Bengal - 700 114
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise : Respondent
Kolkata-III Commissionerate,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
WITH
Excise Appeal No. 72046 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 8/COMMR/CE/KOL-III/2012-13 dated
10.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III
Commissionerate, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
Shri Sandeep Fogla, Director, : Appellant
M/s. A.R. Stanchem Private Limited
227/F, B.T. Road, Panihati,
District - 24 Parganas (North),
West Bengal - 700 114
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise : Respondent
Kolkata-III Commissionerate,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
AND
Excise Appeal No. 72047 of 2013
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 8/COMMR/CE/KOL-III/2012-13 dated
10.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III
Commissionerate, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107)
Shri Subrata Kr. Das, Director, : Appellant
M/s. A.R. Stanchem Private Limited
227/F, B.T. Road, Panihati,
District - 24 Parganas (North),
West Bengal - 700 114
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise : Respondent
Kolkata-III Commissionerate,
180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata - 700 107
2
Appeal No(s).: E/72045-72047/2013-DB
APPEARANCE:
Shri N.K. Chowdhury, Advocate for the Appellant(s)
Shri K. Chowdhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER NOs. 75603-75605 / 2024
DATE OF HEARING / DECISION: 20.03.2024
Order : [Per Shri Ashok Jindal]
The appellants are in appeal against the
impugned order.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a
100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) and engaged in the
manufacture of Acid Slurry, also known as "LABSA",
as excisable goods classifiable under Sub-heading
3402 9091 and Spent Sulphuric Acid, as excisable
goods classifiable under Sub-heading 2807 0010,
from Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) for which they have
registered with the Central Excise Department and
obtained necessary formalities for manufacture and
clearance of the said excisable goods. It is a fact that
in the process of manufacture of LABSA, inputs viz.
LAB and Sulphuric Acid.
3. The appellant received an export order of 500
M.T. of LAB. In terms of that, the appellant placed the
said order on M/s. Tamilnadu Petro Products; the said
goods were manufactured by M/s. Tamilnadu Petro
Products and were exported against the export
invoices dated 13.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 from the
premises of M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro Products following
the procedure for export as laid down under Rule 19
of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with the
relevant notifications.
3
Appeal No(s).: E/72045-72047/2013-DB
4. Demands were sought to be confirmed against
them on the ground that the appellants had acted as
a merchant exporter, which is not permitted, as their
licence was of a 100% EOU; prior permission of the
Development Commissioner concerned and the
Jurisdictional Range Officer of Central Excise.
Therefore, the value of the said export of LAB was to
be included in their own manufacturing sales to claim
the benefit as extended to 100% EOU, but separately
the same is trading. Therefore, Excise Duty was
sought to be recovered on the goods so manufactured
and exported from the premises of M/s. Tamilnadu
Petro Products.
5. In these set of facts, a Show Cause Notice dated
07.09.2011 was issued to the appellant and
thereafter, demand of Excise Duty was confirmed
along with interest by the adjudicating authority;
penalty was also imposed.
6. Against the said order, the appellants are before
us.
7. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submits that it is a fact that the
manufacture of LAB and export of the LAB was done
by M/s. Tamilnadu Petro Products and the same has
been exported by following the procedure laid down
under the relevant notifications and Rules. It is his
submission that as the goods had not reached the
bonded warehouse of the EOU, therefore, the question
of demanding duty from the appellants does not arise;
therefore, no permission is required from the
Development Commissioner and the Jurisdictional
Officer and there is no violation of any notifications /
Rules.
4
Appeal No(s).: E/72045-72047/2013-DB
7.1 In these circumstances, he prayed that the
impugned order be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized
Representative appearing on behalf of the respondent
supported the impugned order.
9. Heard the parties and considered their
submissions.
10. We find that the appellant is a 100% EOU and
is having a bonded warehouse from where they
manufacture and export the goods. In this case, the
appellant got an export order of LAB of 500 M.T.,
which the appellant got manufactured from M/s.
Tamilnadu Petro Products and the same were
exported from the premises of M/s. Tamil Nadu Petro
Products Ltd. directly.
11. In these circumstances, we hold that the
appellant is not liable to pay Excise Duty as the
appellant has never manufactured the goods nor were
the goods received in their bonded warehouse.
Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the
appellants were not warranted. Hence, we set aside
the impugned order and drop the demand and penalty
raised against the appellants.
12. In the result, the appeals are allowed with
consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court)
Sd/- Sd/-
*
(K. ANPAZHAKAN) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Sdd