Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd on 23 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/43/09 & E/533/09
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.26/2008-TRY dated 17.10.2008 and OIA No.82/2009 dated 4.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirappalli]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
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,
Tiruchirappalli
Appellant
Versus
Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A.B.Niranjan Babu, SDR Ms.Uma Maheswari, Advocate For the Appellant For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 23.7.2010 Date of decision : 23.7.2010 Final Order No.____________ The issue in dispute in the present appeals is whether capital goods credit is available on Beams/MS plates/MS joists/MS steels etc. The adjudicating authority adjudicated the show-cause notice proposing denial of credit on the ground that the items do not satisfy the definition of capital goods and he hence confirmed the demands together with interest and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication orders relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE [2008 (227) ELT 107]; hence these appeals by the Revenue.
2. I have heard both sides I find that the issue now stands squarely settled against the assessees by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. & Others. Following the ratio of the above decision, I set aside the impugned orders in so far it relates to setting aside of demands and interest. However, I agree with the ld. counsel for the respondents that this is not a case where penalty is warranted, in view of the conflict of decisions leading to the reference of the case to a Larger Bench. I therefore set aside the penalties.
3. The appeals of the Revenue are thus partly allowed as above.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT gs 4