Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Tcp Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 3 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/55/2003
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.20/2003 dated 30.01.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble DR.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, 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? :
M/s.TCP Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Respondent
Appearance :
Shri S.M.V. Raman, Adv. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 03.08.2009 Date of decision : 03.08.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram We have heard both sides on the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upholding demand of Rs.64,800/- confirmed against the assessees therein by denying the benefit of Notification No.1/95-CE dated 04.01.1995, for the reason that the consignment of Sodium Hydro Sulphite cleared on the strength of CT-3 certificated dated 28.02.1996 without payment of duty got destroyed in a fire accident while in transit and therefore not put to use for the purpose specified in the notification.
2. The language of the notification makes it clear that the manufacturer of goods who clears the goods from factory to 100% E.O.U. is responsible for the payment of duty if the rewarehousing certificate is not received within 90 days from the date of removal. In this case, the goods never reached the 100% E.O.U. Therefore, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order which we accordingly uphold. The appeal therefore is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
04-08-2009
??
??
??
??
1
4