Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Akc Steel Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 5 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/2957/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 06-2012 dated 30/08/2012 passed by CC,E&ST(Appeals), Visakhapatnam] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes AKC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD MALKAPURAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 011 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 05/10/2015 Date of Decision: 05/10/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22015 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA The appellants are manufacturers of non-alloy steel bars. They are also undertaking the job work for its customers, in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE dt. 26/03/1986. During the course of manufacture of goods on job work basis, they used duty paid furnace oil and Oxygen and availed the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs.
2. Revenue, by entertaining a view that inasmuch as the goods manufactured in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE which were being cleared by the appellant without payment of duty, they were not entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs used in such manufacture. Accordingly by way of issuance of show-cause notice dt. 04/08/2011, a proposal was made to deny the credit of Rs.54,085/- availed by them during the period July 2010 to October 2010.
3. While adjudicating the case, the original adjudicating authority took note of the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. [2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri. LB)] as also Honble Punjab & Haryana High Courts decision in the case of Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd. [2011 (268) ELT 360 (P&H)] and dropped the proceedings.
4. Revenue, being aggrieved with the said order, filed an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals), who reversed the order. Hence the present appeal.
5. Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, I have heard learned AR Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent.
6. It is not disputed that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. as also by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of Jainsons Wool Coombers Ltd. referred supra. The appellate authority has also observed in his impugned order that the issue stands decided. However he has not extended the benefit to the assessee on the sole ground that the period involved in those cases was prior to the period involved in the present case. However he has not referred to any change either in law or in the wordings of the Notification No.214/86-CE so as not to apply the ratio of the said decision. Merely by observing that the appellant has availed credit in respect of furnace oil and Oxygen which has been used by them in the manufacture of the goods cleared without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.214/86-CE, he has set aside the impugned order of the lower authorities.
7. I do not appreciate the above conduct of the Commissioner(Appeals). In spite of having accepted that the issue stands decided, he has not applied the ratio of the same on the sole ground of difference in period. He has not explained as to how the earlier decisions would become inapplicable for the subsequent period, especially when there is no change in law. Such an act on the part of the Commissioner(Appeals) reflects upon the predetermined mind and lowers the public faith in the fair outcome of litigation.
8. Having said so, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Operative part of this order pronounced in the court on conclusion of the hearing) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja.
4