Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Honest Bio Vet Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... on 16 July, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/10680/2013-SM [Arising out of OIA No.06/2013(AHD-I)CE/AK/Commissioner(A)/AHD, dt.29.01.2013, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad] M/s Honest Bio Vet Pvt.Ltd. Appellant Vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-I Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri P.P. Jadeja, Consultant For Respondent: Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. H.K. Thakur, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. H.K. THAKUR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:16.07.2015 Order No. A/11017 / 2015 dt.16.07.2015 Per: H.K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the Appellant with respect to 06/2013(AHD-I)CE/AK/Commissioner(A)/AHD, dt.29.01.2013, under which OIO No. No.49/Addl.Commr/2009, dt.03.03.2009 was upheld. Adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of Rs.5,87, 987.00 against the Appellant, alongwith interest, with respect to the finished goods which were cleared from the factory but were destroyed before the goods were actually exported.
2. Shri P.P.Jadeja (Consultant) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that the issue involved is regarding remission of duty vis-`-vis place of removal was referred to the Larger Bench in the case of the same Appellant. That CESTAT in their order No.M/14401/2014/WZB/ AHD, dt.04.09.2014 (Appeal No.E/371/209), reported as Honest Bio Vet Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Ahmedabad-I [2014 (310) ELT 526 (Tri.-LB)], decided the reference in favour of the Appellant. That based on the decision of the Larger Bench, the case of the Appellant with respect to remission of duty in Appeal No.E/371/2009 was decided in favour of the Appellant under Order No.A/10725/2015, dt.29.05.2015. Learned Consultant made the Bench go through Para 5.4 of the OIA dt.29.01.2013 to argue that the demand in the present proceedings has been confirmed by the First Appellate Authority only on the ground that the issue in Appeal No.E/371/2009 has been referred to CESTAT Larger Bench. It was his case that once the issue of remission of duty on the finished goods destroyed has been decided in favour of the Appellant, then the confirmation of demand with respect to same goods will not survive. Learned Consultant also argued that amount of Rs.5,87,987.00 was paid under protest from CENVAT Credit account vide Entry No.305/2014, dt.24.1.2013 and that the same was intimated to the jurisdictional Central Excise officers under their Letter dt.24.01.2013.
3. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. The Appellants appeal regarding remission of duty on certain goods destroyed during the period from the place of removal to the place of export. Larger Bench in the case of the Appellant decided the issue in favour of the Appellant and accordingly Appeal No.E/371/2009 of the Appellant was allowed. Once remission of duty for the same goods is allowed, the case of confirming the demand on the same goods is not justified. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed by setting aside the OIA dt.29.01.2013 passed by the First Appellate Authority with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) cbb 3