Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Meera Offset Printers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 1 November, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV APPEAL NO. E/536/06-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR/176/M-IV/05 dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) =====================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=====================================================
M/s Meera Offset Printers
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate
for Appellant
Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (A.R.)
for Respondent
CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HONBLE SHRI C.J. MATHEW, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
Date of Hearing: 01.11.2016
Date of Decision: 14.12.2016
ORDER NO.
Per: Ramesh Nair:
The issue involved in the present case is demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, on the ground that the appellant has availed CENVAT credit in respect of common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable product i.e. corrugated boxes and exempted products i.e. lebels, catlog, folders, leaflets etc. under exemption Notification No. 10/02 dated 01.03.2002.
2. Shri R.V. Shetty, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they are engaged in manufacturing activity of dutiable product and exempted goods. They are not availing the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs attributed to exempted goods; they are also maintaining a separate record. He submits that in appellants own case the similar dispute was raised wherein matter had travelled up to this Tribunal. Thereafter in the remand proceeding the adjudicating authority had dropped the demand after recording the fact that the appellant is maintaining separate records vide Order-in-Original No. V/H/BPP-5/2007 dated 08.08.2007. Therefore there is no dispute that the appellant is maintaining separate records, hence the demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods in terms of Rules 6(3)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 is not legally sustainable.
3. On the other hand Shri Sanjay Hasija, Learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. We find that from the past records, it appears, the appellant is not availing CENVAT credit on the inputs attributable to exempted goods. In the past period also a case was made out which finally dropped on the basis of verification done by the jurisdictional Superintendent that the appellant is maintaining separate records. As per the present case such verification was not carried out. Therefore it is difficult to prove whether in the period involved in present case, whether the appellant have maintained separate records and not availed the CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the exempted goods. Therefore the matter needs to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority. We therefore set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact, that the appellant is not availing the CENVAT credit on the inputs attributable to exempted goods on the basis of records maintained by the appellant. It is not important whether separate record is maintained by the appellant, the important is to satisfy that the appellant have not availed the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs attributable to exempted goods, if this is established, the demand will not sustain. As per the above discussion, the appeal is allowed by way or remand in the above terms.
(Pronounced in Court on 14.12.2016) (C.J. Mathew) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Sp 2 APPEAL NO. E/536/06-Mum