Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Chandigarh vs M/S. Nachiketa Strips & Tubes Ltd on 11 March, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2141 of 2007-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91/CE/CHD/ 2007 dated 12.4.2007 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, 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?
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., Chandigarh. Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Nachiketa Strips & Tubes Ltd . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri I. Baig, SDR for the Appellants
None for the Respondent
Date of Hearing/decision : 11.3.2010
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 91/CE/CHD/ 2007 dated 12.4.2007 by which the order of the original authority which was in favour of the assessee was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. None appears for the respondents. Heard the learned SDR for the department.
3. The respondent received hot rerolled products of non-alloy steel from M/s. Pepsu Steel Rolling Mills and M/s. Pritam Singh Hunjan and Bros. who were working under compounded levy scheme and took deemed credit in terms of notification No. 58/97-CE dated 30.8.97. The amount involved is Rs. 3,95,167.68 relating to the months of October to December, 1999. Show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise Incharge of the respondents inter-alia alleging that the invoices from the supplier either did not contain the declaration that duty liability has been discharged under Rule 96ZP as required under Notification No. 56/97 or that the duty had been discharged at the material time of clearance of goods or that they failed to produce the certificate to that effect. In other words, the Superintendent Incharge of recipient unit has not only questioned the validity of invoices but also questioned the correctness of duty liability paid by the supplying units who were working under the compounded levy scheme. The original authority took up the matter with the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner Incharge of the supplying units have found that the supplying units were indeed working under compounded levy scheme and that the dispute relating to actual liability of the supplying units have been settled by the Tribunal vide order No.A/1229-1230/2000-NB(SM) dated 5.7.2000 in favour of the supplying units and accordingly, dropped the proceedings. Commissioner thought it fit to file appeal against the order of the original authority. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority by the impugned order. However, the department felt that the order of the Commissioner was not legal and proper and filed the present appeal. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that the CESTAT order dated 5.7.2000 is in appeal by the department before the Honble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
4. The dispute whether the respondent units have paid the correct amount of duty or not has been settled in favour of the concerned assessees by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.7.2000. The decision of the Honble High Court in appeal filed by the Department can have implication about the duty liability of the supplying units. However, the credit taken by the respondent units is not dependent on the actual duty liability of the supplying units and the same is granted as deemed credit in terms of Notification No. 58/97 CE cited (supra). The orders of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) have clear finding that the supplying units were, during the relevant period, were working under compounded levy scheme. Under these circumstances, no valid ground have been adduced to interfere with the concurrent finding of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) which are in favour of the respondent-assessee.
5. The appeal by the Department is rejected.
( M. Veeraiyan ) Member(Technical) ss 2