Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Tirunelveli vs M/S. Dcw Ltd on 23 September, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/889/2003 and E/CO/48/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 101/2003 dated 31.7.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tirunelveli)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Tirunelveli Appellant
Vs.
M/s. DCW Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Appellant Shri C. Seethapathy, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 23.09.2009 Date of Decision: 23.09.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in the above appeal relates to eligibility to MODVAT credit availed on payment of additional duty of Customs by way of debit in DEPB licence in respect of import of Vinyl Chloride Monomer imported under Bill of Entry dated 21.5.1998.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that this issue stands squarely covered against the importers by the decision of the larger Bench in Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2004 (173) ELT 239 holding that mere debit in DEPB passbook is not sufficient to be eligible to the benefit of MODVAT credit. Following the ratio of the above order, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the Revenue holding that the importers are liable to pay the duty of Rs.23,07,196/- as confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. In the cross-objection, the importers have contended that a single appeal of the Department is not maintainable for the reason that two show-cause notices were issued and two appeals were required to be filed and non-filing of appeal against DCW Ltd., Tuticorin should result in dismissal of the present appeal. However, the legal position being that as many appeals as there are orders are required to be filed, and the fact remaining that there is only one single assessee namely M/s. DCW Ltd., single appeal is sufficient. In this view of the matter we dismiss the cross-objection.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2