Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Tcp Ltd vs Cce, Madurai on 21 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1169/2004
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 162/2004 dated 28.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, 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?
M/s. TCP Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 21.07.2014 Date of Decision: 21.07.2014 Final Order No. 40428/2014 Per P.K. Das After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of liquid sulphur di-oxide falling under Chapter 28 of the CETA, 1985. The appellant collected rental charges for the cylinders used as containers for sale of liquid sulphur di-oxide and testing on maintenance charges for the cylinders supplied by the buyers as containers. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.50,117/- for the period 1.9.2001 to 30.4.2002 and imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld by the adjudication order.
2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal in the appellants own case vide Final Order No. 790/2009 dated 1.7.2009, on the identical issue, by following the decision of the Honble Supreme Court CCE Vs. Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1988 (36) ELT 730 (SC) and the decision of the Tribunal in Bhoruka Gases Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (224) ELT 577 and in the case of Govind Poy Oxygen Ltd. Vs. CCE 2008 (231) ELT 299 set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. It is also noticed that the Tribunal in the subsequent appeal filed by the same appellant vide Final Order No. 361 & 362/2010 dated 24.3.2010, following the earlier order, set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeals. The learned AR for Revenue submits that the Revenue had already challenged the Tribunals order before the Honble Supreme Court, which is still pending. He also submits that on the identical issue, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2009 (241) ELT 321 (SC) referred the matter to the Larger Bench of the Honble Supreme Court.
3. After considering the amount involved and the dispute relates to 2001-02 and following the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants own case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex