Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Srf Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 9 July, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/1421/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.11/2004 dt. 31.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli]
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 ? :
SRF Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Trichy Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R. Parthasarathy, Advocate For the Appellant
Shri P. Arul, Superintendent For the Respondent
CORAM :
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member
Date of Hearing : 09-07-2014 Date of Decision : 09-07-2014
FINAL ORDER No.40389/2014
Per P.K. Das
1. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order to the extent of denial of cenvat credit of Rs.12,24,357/- in respect of five show cause notices issued during the period 16.4.1993 to 20.7.1994.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of "Double side PVC coated Nylon Fabrics". From this fabric, the appellants also manufacture fabricated covers known as "Tarpaulin". The present appeal relates to denial of credit availed on Tarpaulin. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant cleared Tarpaulin under Chapter Heading 3926.90 on payment of duty. They have also availed cenvat credit. Subsequently, 'Tarpaulin' was classified under Heading 6301 and upheld by the Tribunal. Accordingly, five show cause notices were issued proposing to deny cenvat credit. It is seen from the show cause notice dt. 16.4.93 that it was proposed to deny or expunge modvat credit of Rs.85,034/- in terms of Rule 57I read with Section11A of the Central Excise Act and also as to why appropriate duty of 12% leviable under Chapter 6301 of the product 'Tarpaulin' should not be levied and demanded under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that during the material period, the appellant paid duty on Tarpaulin under chapter Heading 39 of Rs.66,58,896/-. It is also seen from the impugned order, demand of duty would be under chapter 63 of Rs.32,56,316/-. The adjudicating authority observed that the show cause notice is silent as to whether duty is leviable on double side coated fabrics captively consumed in final product classifiable under Chapter 39. The main contention of the learned advocate is that they have paid duty of Rs.66,58,896/- and the total demand would be only Rs.32,56,316/. Thus it is clearly evident that they have paid excess duty. There is no material available that any demand was raised on double side coated fabrics captively consumed in the final product. In view of that, we find that they paid duty of Rs.66,58,896.00 against the demand of Rs.32,56,316/- and therefore denial of modvat credit of Rs.12,24,357/- is not justifiable.
4. In view of our discussion, we set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. At this stage, Ld. AR submits that the appellants are not entitled to take any refund of the differential duty amount. Ld. Advocate submits that they have not filed any refund claim in respect of the differential amount.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
gs
2