Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S Aarti Steel Ltd on 20 June, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No.E/3648/2012- (SM) (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 250/CE/Appl/Chd.II (Ldh)/2012 dated 21.08.2012 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) Date of Hearing/Decision: 20.06.16 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Ludhiana Appellant Vs. M/s Aarti Steel Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Sh. G.M. Sharma, A.R - for the appellant None, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 60775/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Ld. Commissioner (A) has held that the Provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is manufacturing of Steel Items and doing activity of manufacturing of his own account as well as on job work basis. The Activity of job work goods was undertaken under Notification 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, therefore, he was not required to pay duty on job work goods. After investigation, it was alleged against the respondent that as the respondent is manufacturing dutiable as well as exempted final product, as per provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the respondent is not maintained separate account for dutiable as well as exempted goods, therefore, the respondent is required to pay 10% of the value of job work goods (exempted goods). In this set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the respondent and a show cause notice was issued to respondent. The show cause notice was adjudicated and the demand of duty was confirmed on account of non-maintaining of separate account of job work goods as well as manufactured goods and the demand of duty was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was imposed. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the ld. Commissioner (A) who set aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said order of Ld. Commissioner (A), the Revenue is before me.
3. The Ld. AR submits that as the respondent is manufacturing goods as well as undertaken the activity of job work. He is not required to pay duty on job work goods and is maintaining the separate account for job work goods & manufactured goods. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay the amount 10% of the value of the job work goods as per the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent, no request for adjournment has been made. In the interest of justice, the matter is taken up for disposal.
5 On careful consideration of the issue is involved and arguments of the Ld. AR, I find that it is admitted fact that the job work goods manufactured by the respondent are dutiable goods. The respondent is manufacturing only and only dutiable goods, therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not arise at all. In fact the impugned proceedings were never warranted against the respondent. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order wherein he has categorically record that the respondent is manufacturing job work goods under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 and as per the said notification the respondent is not required to pay duty but that notification does not state that the goods are exempted goods. In fact, the goods manufactured under notification 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 are requested to suffer duty at the end of job workers as the duty is to be paid by the principal manufacturer. In that circumstances, I do agree with the observations made by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order who he has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries Vs. CCE, 2005(185) ELT 353 (Tri.-LB) and Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. 2005 (191) ELT 1099.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1