Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Kalpana Lamps And Components Ltd on 2 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/00276/2006
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.3/2006 (M-I), dated 16.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I
Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kalpana Lamps and Components Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC(AR) None For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 02.04.2014 Date of decision : 02.04.2014 Final Order No.40300/2014 None appears on behalf of the respondent despite issue of notice.
2. Heard the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records.
3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Fluorescent Tube Lights (dutiable) and General Lighting Service lamps (NIL duty) classifiable under Heading No.85.39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing Cenvat credit benefit. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.03.2001, was issued proposing an amount of Rs.30,94,760/- for the clearance of General Lighting Service lamps during the period from March, 2000 to Jan.01 under Rule 57AH of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest and penalty. It has been alleged that the respondent were manufacturing exempted and dutiable finished products and they have contravened the provisions of Rule 57AD of the erstwhile Rules insofar as they have not reversed the credit on certain inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs.30,94,760/- under Rule 57CC/57AD of the erstwhile Rules being the amount equal to 8% of the price of the exempted finished goods on which Cenvat credit has been utilized under erstwhile Rule 57A/57AA of the said Rules and also imposed a penalty of Rs.3 lakhs under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and hence the Revenue filed this appeal.
4. The learned Authorised Representative reiterated the grounds of appeal. She submits that Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the respondent reversed the credit of Rs.11,355/- on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. She submits that the respondent has reversed the credit and without prejudice, the respondent is liable to pay interest. She relied upon the decision of Honble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported in 2013 (295) E.L.T.671 (Mad.).
5. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find from the impugned order that the respondent had used certain inputs in the manufacture of exempted finished products involving credit amounting to Rs.11,355/- which they have reversed from their Cenvat credit prior to issue of Show Cause Notice. The demand was raised on the ground that they have not maintained the proper accounts and, therefore, the demand of an amount of Rs.30,94,760/- calculated at 8% of the value of exempted finished goods on which credit was availed during the period March, 2000 to Jan.01. Commissioner (Appeals) followed the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T.3 (S.C.). It is seen that the Honble Madras High Court following the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra), dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The main argument of the learned Authorised Representative is that the respondent without prejudice had not produced any evidence in respect of the reversal of credit. I do not find any grounds in the appeal of the Revenue regarding the dispute of credit of Rs.11,355/-. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority had not demanded interest. In view of that the contention of the learned Authorised Representative in respect of the demand of interest cannot be accepted at this stage. In the case of Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (supra) the period of dispute was Apr.08 to Dec.08 under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh in the light of retrospective amendment to the Rules along with application filed by the assessee under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010. In the present case the period of dispute is March, 2000 to Jan.01 under Rule 57CC/57AD of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Revenue had not disputed the reversal of credit of Rs.11,342/- in their grounds of appeal. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P.K. DAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of dictation 02.04.2014 Draft Order - Date of typing 03-04-2014 Fair Order Typing 07-05-2014 Date of numbering and date of dispatch E/00276/2006 6