Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ajay Metachem (P) Ltd vs Pune Iii on 7 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO: E/2093/2006
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: PIII/050/2006 dated 22/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III.]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
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 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
Ajay Metachem (P) Ltd.
Appellant
Vs
Commissioner of Central Excise
Pune III
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.A. Shekhar, Advocate for the appellant Shri V.C. Khole, Dy. Commissioner (A. R.) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 07/02/2014 Date of decision: 07/02/2014 ORDER NO: ____________________________ The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No: PIII/050/2006 dated 22/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune III.
2. Vide the impugned order the lower appellate authority has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority wherein a demand for CENVAT credit of ` 16,77,552/- along with interest thereon has been confirmed apart from imposition of penalties, being the credit availed on activity which does not amount to manufacture. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before me.
3. The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that while clearing the final product, they had paid duty on the same which is much more than the quantum of credit availed by them and in a number of decisions, this Tribunal held that payment of duty would tantamount to reversal of credit in a case where duty is not required to be paid. In appellants own case, for the previous period, this Tribunal vide order No. A/530/WZB/06/C-II dated 22/03/2006 has allowed the appeal of the appellant. Therefore, in the present case also, the same be followed and the appeal allowed.
4. The learned Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes.
5. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and also noting that in appellants own case for the previous period, the appeal has been allowed, in the present case also the appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) */as 3