Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Lucknow vs M/S. Dscl Sugar on 12 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Date of Hearing/ Decision12.07.2012 CCE, Lucknow Appellants Vs. M/s. DSCL Sugar Respondent
Appearance:
Shri I. Beg, AR for the appellant. Shri Ashish Vaish, CA for the respondent. Coram: Honble Shri Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Excise Appeal No.E/1306 of 2012-Ex Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke:
Shri Ashish Vaish, Chartered Accountant for the respondent submits that the respondent had filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court challenging the demand notice issued by the department, which is subject matter of this appeal. Ld. Chartered Accountant submits that Honble High Court vide judgement dated 18.05.2012 has quashed the aforesaid demand and ordered the department to refund that excise duty and interest deposited by the petitioner under protest. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid order of the High Court quashing the demand raised by show cause notice, the instant appeal has become infructuous. Ld. Chartered Accountant has placed on record copy of the said order.
2. In view of the aforesaid order of the Honble High Court, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
( Justice Ajit Bharihoke ) President (Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Date of Hearing/ Decision:25.06.2012 M/s.Climax Trading Co. Appellants Shri Sachin Gupta Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Shri Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Excise Stay Applications Nos.E/Stay /1034 & 1035 of 2012 In Appeals Nos.846 and 847 of 2012 Order No.
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke:
The appellants/applicants by these applications are seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs.1,49,76,581/- with interest and equal amount of penalty, besides, penalty of Rs.5 Lakhs on the appellant, Shri Sachin Gupta .
2. The Cenvat credit has been denied to the appellant-company on the ground that production of Plain, Coated, Printed, Embossed Aluminium Foil not exceeding 0.2 mm. thickness, Aluminium Foils Seals/Lids does not amount to manufacture.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants under bonafide belief that the process adopted by him amounted to manufacture was clearing those goods on payment of excise duty and he also availed cenvat credit on the inputs used for production of the final products. This fact is not disputed by the ld. DR.
4. Since the appellant has cleared the goods on payment of excise duty, prima facie, we are of the view that there is no justification for denying the cenvat credit in respect of the Inputs to the appellant. Accordingly, we waive the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand with interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof. Stay applications are accordingly allowed.
5. Appeals be listed in due course.
( Justice Ajit Bharihoke ) President (Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
( Justice Ajit Bharihoke ) President (Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Date of Hearing/ Decision:25.06.2012 M/s.Climax Trading Co. Appellants Shri Sachin Gupta Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Shri Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Excise Stay Applications Nos.E/Stay /1034 & 1035 of 2012 In Appeals Nos.846 and 847 of 2012 Order No.
Per Justice Ajit Bharihoke:
The appellants/applicants by these applications are seeking waiver of the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand of Rs.1,49,76,581/- with interest and equal amount of penalty, besides, penalty of Rs.5 Lakhs on the appellant, Shri Sachin Gupta .
2. The Cenvat credit has been denied to the appellant-company on the ground that production of Plain, Coated, Printed, Embossed Aluminium Foil not exceeding 0.2 mm. thickness, Aluminium Foils Seals/Lids does not amount to manufacture.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants under bonafide belief that the process adopted by him amounted to manufacture was clearing those goods on payment of excise duty and he also availed cenvat credit on the inputs used for production of the final products. This fact is not disputed by the ld. DR.
4. Since the appellant has cleared the goods on payment of excise duty, prima facie, we are of the view that there is no justification for denying the cenvat credit in respect of the Inputs to the appellant. Accordingly, we waive the condition of pre-deposit of duty demand with interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof. Stay applications are accordingly allowed.
5. Appeals be listed in due course.
( Justice Ajit Bharihoke ) President (Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
??
??
??
??
1