Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jalandhar vs M/S Neel Kanth Rubber Mills on 6 February, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
R.K. PURAM, W.B. NO.2, PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI, COURT NO.I
Excise Appeal No. 2930 of 2006 & 247 of 2008
[Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 194/CE/Jal/2006 & 341/CE/Appeal/Jal/2007 dated 9.06.2006 & dated 01.11.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jalandhar]
Date of Hearing/Decision : 06.02.2009
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President
,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,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?
CCE, Jalandhar Appellant
[Rep. by Mr. S. K. Bhaskar, DR]
Versus
M/s Neel Kanth Rubber Mills Respondent
[Rep. by Mr. B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate] CORAM: Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President O r d e r Per Jyoti Balasundaram:
Cenvat credit of Rs. 807256/- has been held to be inadmissible to the respondent herein on the ground that CVD on which credit was taken has been deducted from the DEPB and not paid in cash. The denial was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), hence, appeals by the Revenue.
2. I have heard both sides. Notification No. 96/2004-Cus. dated 17.9.2004 provides that an importer shall be entitled to avail the drawback of cenvat credit of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the amount debited in the Duty Entitlement Pass Book. The case of the Department is based upon paragraph 6 of Circular No. 59/2004-Cus dated 21.10.2004 which stipulates that this facility of availment of CVD, paid through debit under DEPB, will be available only in respect of licensc issued under the new Foreign Trade Policy and that previous policy would be governed by the provisions of earlier policy. The contention of the Department is that the licence in the present case has been issued under the previous policy and during that period cenvat credit was not admissible on CVD paid otherwise than in cash. However, once the notification has been amended on 17.09.2004 to extend the benefit of availment of credit of CVD, debited through the DEPB account, no restriction in the circular relied upon by the Revenue can be read into the notification. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned orders which I uphold, and reject the appeals.
[Dictated and pronounced in the open Court] [Jyoti Balasundaram] Vice President [Pant]