Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Rajasthan Transmission Wire Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St,Jaipur-I on 28 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing:26.10.2016
Date of Decision: 28/10/2016
Excise Appeal No.59664/2013-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.50(VC)CE/JPR-I/2013 dated 20.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur]
Rajasthan Transmission Wire Pvt. Ltd. Appellants Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST,Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance:
Rep. by Shri Vijayan Khangal, CA for the appellant. Rep. by Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent. Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No.54622/2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
The appeal is against order dated 20.05.2013 of Commissioner (Appeals-I), Jaipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ACSR Conductors liable to central excise duty. Some of the final products cleared on payment of duty were returned by the buyers due to certain defect, during the period September, 2008 to December, 2008. The appellants took credit of duty paid on such returned goods in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After re-processing of these defective items, they have cleared the same in December, 2008 on payment of applicable duty. The dispute in the present case is that the process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture and as such, they are governed by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 16, which states that if the process, to which the goods are subjected to before being removed, does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to the cenvat credit taken under sub-rule (1). It is the case of the Revenue that the appellant undertook certain process, which do not amount to manufacturer, however, at the time of clearance of the said processed goods, they have paid lesser duty than the amount of credit availed at the time of return of the said goods. As such, the differential duty is sought to be demanded. A show cause notice dated 14.12.2010 was issued to demand a differential duty on this account amounting to Rs.1,44,158/-. The Original Authority confirmed the demand along with equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order.
2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.
3. Before going into the merits of the case, we note that the appellants contested the demand on limited issue of time bar. We note that the credit on the returned items were availed in November, 2008 in terms of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The said goods were processed and cleared on payment of duty in December, 2008. The duty difference between the credit taken and duty paid on the impugned goods was sought to be recovered by the show cause notice dated 14.12.2010 invoking extended period of demand. We find that the credit availed at the time of return has been duly recorded in RG-23 A Part-II and clearance has also been made as per invoices issued figuring in their records. This much has been admitted in the show cause notice itself. We note that in terms of Rule 16(1) where the duty paid goods are brought back to any factory for being re-made, re-conditioned, etc., the assessee shall state the particulars of such receipt in his records and shall be entitled to take cenvat credit of the duty paid on such goods. We find that the appellants have complied with the said condition. Thereafter, at the time of clearance also, they have cleared the same under proper invoice and on payment of duty. In such situation, we find to sustain a case for extended period, no element of suppression, fraud, etc. can be established. As such, without going into the merits of the case, we find that the demand is not sustainable on the question of time bar itself. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
[Order pronounced on 28.10.2016.] ( Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President ( B. Ravichandran ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1 E/59664/2013-EX(DB)