Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Arising Out Of Order-In-Appeal No. ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 22 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. 652- 655 of 2010-SM(BR) &
Excise Stay Application No. 667-670 of 2010-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 473-476(KKG) CE/JPR-II/2009 dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur II]
M/s. BSL Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Jaipur II
Excise Appeal No. 2599 of 2010-SM(BR) &
Excise Stay Application No. 2366 of 2010-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 72-74/ CE/GZB/2010 dated 20.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad]
M/s. FAB Consultants & Engineers P. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Ghaziabad
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical)
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chibber and Shri Saurabh Yadav Advocates, for the Appellants
Shri Anil Khanna, SDR for the Respondent
Date of Hearing/decision : 22.11.2010
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per M. Veeraiyan:
1.1 Appeal Nos. E/652 to 655/2010 are by M/s. BSL Ltd. against common order in appeal No. 473-476(KKG) CE/JPR-II/2009 dated 22.12.2009.
1.2 Appeal No. E/2599/2010 is by M/s. FAB Consultants & Engineers P. Ltd. against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 72-74/ CE/GZB/2010 dated 20.5.2010.
2. Heard Shri Saurabh Yadav, advocate for M/s. BSL Ltd. and Shri Rajesh Chibber, Advocate for M/s. Fab Consultants & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Heard Shri Anil Khanna, learned SDR for the department.
3. As short matter is involved, and as appeals deserve to be disposed of finally, pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned orders are waived and stay petitions are disposed of and appeals are taken up for final hearing with the consent of both sides.
4.1 In the case of M/s. BSL Ltd. four show cause notices dated 29.3.07, 4.10.10, 27.12.07 and 16.7.08 were issued for the period from 1.4.02 to 31.3.08 proposing demand of amounts at 8% /10% of value of the exempted goods on the ground that appellants have not maintained separate accounts in respect of common inputs which went into manufacture of exempted products. The demands have been made in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004.
4.2 In Appeal by M/s. FAB Consultants & Engineers P. Ltd., the demand of an amount at 10% of value of exempted goods relating to period December, 2007 to June, 2008 under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the ground that the appellants have not maintained separate accounts in respect of common inputs which have gone into the manufacture of exempted products.
5.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants M/s. BSL Ltd. submits that Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 were retrospectively amended by Sections 72 and 73 respectively by Finance Act, 2010 providing for regularisation of such disputes subject to payment of amount equivalent to Cenvat Credit attributable to inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of exempted goods. In view of the above, he seeks the matter may be sent to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to enable them to avail the benefit of such retrospective amendments.
5.2 Learned Advocate for M/s. Fab Consultants Engg. Pvt. Ltd. submits that for part of the period involved in dispute, the matter should be considered afresh by the Commissioner in the light of amendments by Sections 72 and 73 by Finance Act, 2010. He also submits that for period from 1.4.2008, law already stands amended enabling adjustment subject to reversal of proportional credit involved in inputs used in the exempted goods and therefore, he seeks that the matter may be remitted to the Commissioner.
6. Learned SDR, in the light of the amendment in terms of section 72 and 73 of Finance Act, 2010 amending Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 respectively, has no objection to the proposals made on behalf of the appellants.
7. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate that the matter be considered afresh by the Commissioner in the light of the amendments carried out to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2010. To enable the same, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and sent the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Appellants are directed to make necessary application to the Commissioner within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The appeals are disposed of as above. Stay petitions are also disposed of.
( M. Veeraiyan ) Member(Technical) ss ??
??
??
??
2