Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bluemont Fibres P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Thane I on 8 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Application No. E/S/93470/13- Mum
In
Appeal No. E/85727/13 -Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. US/898 & 899/RGD/2012 dated 13.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
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 Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Bluemont Fibres P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane I
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate for the appellant Shri Navneet, (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 08/01/2014 Date of decision : 08/01/2014 O R D E R No:..
The appellant is in appeal along with application for stay of demand, which was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant is not entitled to them as their activity does not amount to manufacture.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Considering the fact that the issue revolves in a narrow compass, therefore appeal as well as stay application are taken up for disposal.
4. It is the contention of the appellant that although their activity does not amount to manufacture, but they have cleared these goods on payment of duty and same has not been objected by the revenue. In these circumstances, duty paid by them shall be treated as reversal of credit and therefore relying on the decision of Ajinkya Enterprises 2013 (288) ELT 247 (T), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in 2013 (294) ELT 203 (Bom) wherein this Tribunal held that duty paid at the time of clearance may be treated as equal to reversal of credit taken on inputs. Therefore, impugned order is to be set aside.
5. Considered the submission made by the ld. counsel for the appellant. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in Ajinkya Enterprises (supra). Accordingly, the duty paid by the appellant may be treated as reversal of credit on inputs. In these terms, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 3