Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. Bhopal vs M/S Farmer Engineering Industries Ltd on 26 May, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Cross Application No. E/CROSS/168/2008
Excise Appeal No. E/2536/2007 -Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 40-CE/BPL/06 dated: 29.06.2007 passed by CCE Bhopal]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. Bhopal ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s Farmer Engineering Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Appellants Mr. Z U Alvi, Advocate for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing.26.05.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. 53051 /2015 Per S. K. Mohanty:
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 29.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise-Bhopal. The grievance of the appellant are that the impugned order has vacated the demand of Rs. 74,099/- which was made on the basis of stock, its valuation as declared by the respondent, records maintained by them and the stock position as shown in the bank statement; that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate the fact that the duty of Rs. 8,61,039/- was demanded on the goods cleared clandestinely on the basis of reliable documentary evidences such as, entries made in respondents records, banks statement etc.; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the fact regarding demand of duty of Rs. 68,206/- on removal of scrap.
2. The Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the submissions made in the grounds of appeal.
3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent, submits that the allegation with regard to removal of input material from the factory clandestinely without payment of duty is factually incorrect, inasmuch as, the appellant had furnished the statement to the bank indicating the cost of raw material plus 50% towards value addition, since the raw material have been used for manufacture of semi finished goods. The Ld. Advocate further submits that as far as the Central Excise records are concerned, the appellant had only entered the cost of raw material, since there is no column in the cenvat record for showing the inclusion of value added component therein. He further submits that the Central Excise Department has compared bank statement dated 31.05.2004, with the stock position as on 25.06.2004 which cannot be compared, as the comparison of the two figures of different composition is comparison of in-comparables. With regard to allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods, the submission of the Ld. Advocate is that the Central Excise Department had compared the RT-12 figures vis-a-vis the statement furnished to bank regarding value of finished goods cleared from the factory. According to the Ld. Advocate, in the statement furnished to the Bank, the Respondent had considered the aspects, namely, the elements of cost like assessable value, Central Excise duty, sales tax payable on sale of goods and surcharge levied on the sales tax; whereas for the purpose of maintaining the central excise records, the Respondent had only reflected the assessable value. Hence, according to the Ld. Advocate, there is no difference between the figures. With regard to removal of scrap without payment of duty, it is the submission of the Ld. Advocate that the scrap generated at the Respondents end had suffered duty in the hands of the principal manufacturer i.e. M/s BHEL, and as such, it cannot be alleged that no duty has been paid on removal of scrap from the factory.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and perused the records.
5. The issue involved in the present appeal is on question of facts, which have been discussed in entirety by the Original Adjudicating Authority upon proper analysis and appreciation of evidence available on records and also the statutory records maintained by the Respondent. The order passed by the Original Authority in dropping the duty demand against the Respondent has also been upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the Respondent in the impugned order. Since on the issues involved in the case have been discussed in great detail by the authorities below, I am of the considered opinion that in second appeal stage, such findings cannot be disturbed in absence of any specific grounds by the Revenue that the impugned order is patently perverse, or arrived at after ignoring altogether any material evidence/ record, or solely based on extraneous facts/ evidence on record. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be interfered at this juncture.
6. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue appellant is dismissed. Cross objection also stand disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S.K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha Page | 2