Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs M/S. Apar Industries Ltd on 24 March, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO.1
APPEAL NO. E/2260 & 2261/03
(Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No.PKA/MUMBAI-II/16,17/2003 dtd.29.04.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals ), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.A.K.Srivastava, Member(Technical)
And
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial)
============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
============================================================= Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai :
Appellants VS M/s. Apar Industries Ltd.
Respondents Appearance Shri H.B.Negi, SDR for Appellants Shri D.P.Bhave, Advocate for the respondents CORAM:
Mr.A.K.Srivastava, Member(Technical) And Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member(Judicial) Date of hearing: 24.03.09 Date of decision:24.03.09 ORDER NO. Per : A.K.Srivastava These are the appeals filed by the Revenue.
2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
3. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is common, these appeals are being taken up for disposal by a common order.
4. Following are the details, in the tabular form, of the amount involved, cenvat reversed, period involved and the issue involved.
Appeal No. E/2260/03-Mum Appeal No. E/2261/03-Mum
(i)
(a) Amount involved Rs.37,01,554/-
Rs.52,51,876/-
(8% on Exempted Goods) Total Rs.89,53,430/-
(b) Cenvat Reversed Rs.2,01,752/-
Rs.1,38,911/-
(ii) Period involved Jan.,2000 to Aug.2000 Sept.,2000 to Jan., 2001
(iii) Issued Involved Common input chemicals , on which Cenvat credit is availed, are utilized in the Transformer Oil, manufactured on job-work basis under Notification No.214/86 and cleared/returned subsequently to the Principal Manufacturer/Supplier of inputs (by reversing the proportionate credit on the chemicals used), for further manufacture/utilization in the manufacture of dutiable final products at the Principal Manufacturers end whether an amount equal to the 8% of the value of the exempted goods in terms of the erstwhile Rule 57CC/Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rule is payable/applicable?
5. M/s. Apar Industries Ltd. the Respondent herein, at the material time, was manufacturing Transformer Oil on job-work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, by utilizing their own common input chemicals, on which the Cenvat credit was availed. The goods so manufactured were returned back to the Principal Manufacturer/Input Supplier, after reversing the entire/proportionate credit on such chemicals used, for further utilization in the manufacture of the dutiable final goods at the Principal Manufacturers/Input Suppliers end.
6. The Revenues case is that the Transformer Oil cleared by the Respondent after job work processing to the Principal Manufacturer/Input Supplier, without payment of an amount equal to 8% of the value of the goods, amounts to contravention of the provision of erstwhile Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
7. We find that in the respondents own case, for the period Feb.,2001 to Oct., 2003, the Divisional Bench of the CESTAT, Mumbai, vide Order No.A/20/07/C.II/EB dated 18.12.2006 has held as under:-
the issue is no more res-integra and stands decided by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. vs.CCE, Pune [2005(183)ELT 353(Tri.LB)]. Further, in case of M/s. TVS Sri Chakra Ltd. vs CCE,Madurai [2006(197)ELT 376], it was held that the goods cleared on job-work basis would not be hit by the provisions of Rule 57C thus requiring reversal of credit in terms of Rule 6. In any case, we find that the appellants have reversed the credit in respect of the chemicals used in the manufacture of goods cleared on job-work basis. As such, confirmation of demand in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC is not justified. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants
8. The issue involved is, therefore, no longer res-integra. We further note that the Tribunal, vide majority order, in the case of M/s. Nicholas Piramel (I) Ltd. vs, CCE, Thane.I reported in 2008(232)ELT 37(Tri-LB) has held as under:
the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent to the Cenvat credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory.
9. In view of the above, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) are legal and proper. The same do not require any interference. The appeals filed by the Revenue are devoid of any merits. The same are dismissed.
(Pronounced in court) Ashok Jindal Member(Judicial) A.K.Srivastava Member(Technical) pv 4