Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Allahabad vs M/S. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd on 10 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing 10.7.2013 CROSS APPLICATION No.E/CROSS/65/2011 in Appeal No.E/2882/2010-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.186-187/CE/ALLD/2010, dated 30-06-2010 passed by the C.C.E. (Appeals), Allahabad] For Approval & Signature : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes C.C.E., Allahabad Appellant Vs. M/s. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Mr. P.K. Sharma - for the appellant Shri Mayank Garg - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 57014 dated 10.7.2013 Per Honble Mr. Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by C.C.E., Allahabad against the order-in-appeal No.186-187/CE/AALD/2010 dated 30 June 2010. The order-in-Appeal in question has decided two orders in original passed by original authority. The Revenue has filed only one appeal challenging the order-in-appeal. This appeal filed by the Revenue is treated against Order-in-Appeal No.186/2010, dated 30 June 2010 and since no second appeal is filed by the Revenue, the order-in-Appeal No.187, dated 30 June has attained the finality.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturer of sugar molasses falling under Chapter 17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and they are availing the CENVAT credit as per CENVAT credit Rules. The respondents have availed the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,664/- in respect of sodium silicate solution treating a capital goods. As these goods are not covered under the capital goods as defined in Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Rules, the Department issued Show Cause Notice for reversing the CENVAT credit availed by the assessee and also for levy of interest and penalty on the respondents. Case was decided by the adjudicating authority and he confirmed the demand of Rs.1,664/- and appropriated the same as it was also already reversed by the respondent. He confirmed the interest along with the penalty of Rs.1,664/- under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant challenged order before the C.C.E. (Appeals), who vide the impugned order allowed their appeal.
3. Heard both the sides.
4. I find that the issue involved in the present appeal is regarding the levy of interest on Rs.1,664/- and imposition of penalty equal to the credit amount. The contention of the respondents is that the credit was availed by them but it was not utilised by them and in view of the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2012 (279) E.L.T. 209 (Kar.), they are not liable to pay any interest on the same. I find that this Tribunal in the case of Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. vide order No.E55193/2013, dated 29 November 2012 and after considering the decision in the case of Pearl Insulation Ltd. as well as the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Bill Forge has held that no interest is to be paid if the credit is reversed and the credit has not been utilised. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the order-in-appeal and I uphold the same and reject the appeal. Both the Cross and Appal are disposed accordingly.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) SSK