Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Gemini Edibles & Fats India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 19 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No.22051 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/20976/2014 in E/20884/2014-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/20884/2014-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No.40/2013 C. Ex. dated 29/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, GUNTUR ] Gemini Edibles & Fats India Pvt. Ltd Freedom House, D.No.8-2-334/70&71, Opp. SBI Executive Enclave, Road No.5, Banjara Hills HYDERABAD 500 034. AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Guntur P.B.NO. 331, C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR 520 004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
S/Shri S. Thirumalai & Mr. Harish Bindumadhavan, Advocates 1-8-384 & 385, 3rd Floor, Gowra Grand, S.P. Road, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003. For the Appellant Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 19/11/2014 Date of Decision: 19/11/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The issue relates to demand of excise duty of Rs.62,65,258/- with interest by classifying RBD palm stearin under tariff item 3823 11 12 as against the classification adopted by the appellant under CETH 1511 90 90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.35,04,782/- with respect to clearances from 16.12.2010 to 28.2.2011. He submits that the balance amount relates to the period beyond the normal period of limitation. He also submitted that the Commissioner has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of JOCIL Ltd.: 2011 (263) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) but he submits that the decision in that case related to import of crude palm stearin, whereas in the present case the issue is manufacture by dry fractionation which according to the learned counsel merits classification under the head claimed by the appellant. He also submitted that the impugned product is not chemically modifiable and therefore the classification made is correct. He also submitted that extended period could not have been invoked since the details of clearance without payment of duty have been submitted in the ERI covering the period in dispute. Finally, he submitted that a similar demand with respect to another unit of the same appellant located in Kakinada was considered by this Tribunal and this Tribunal in Final Order No.25773/2013 dated 31.7.2013 has remanded the matter.
2. We have considered the submissions. We find that the issue involves is the same one as was considered by us in the Final Order referred to above. Therefore in this case also the similar action is called for. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the matter on merits taking note of the order referred to above in respect of the unit in Kakinada belonging to the appellant.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER rv 2