Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Hind Lamps Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 23 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2060 of 2006-SM(BR)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 33/CE/APPL/KNP/2006 dated 19.1.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur (UP) ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Hind Lamps Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent
Kanpur Appearance:
Shri S Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing /Decision: 23.4.2014 ORDER NO . FO/ 51784 /2014-EX(SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of electric bulb. Some of the bulbs are below the value of Rs.10/- in which case, the same are exempted by way of notification No. 8/96-CE. They are also manufacturing higher value bulbs which are excisable.
2. The appellants is also engaged in the manufacture of intermediate product like aluminium caps, brass caps, lead glass tubings etc. which are being consumed by them captively as also are being sold to other manufacturers. The said goods were being used by them in both types of electric bulbs i.e. exempted as also dutiable. The appellant paid the Central Excise duty on the said intermediate goods and availed the credit of the same.
3. It is seen that a show cause notice was issued to them in the year 1997 proposing confirmation of demand of 10% in respect of exempted products. The appellants offered to reverse the credit so availed by them but the Revenue rejected the said offer. The matter travelled up to Tribunal, who also rejected the appellants plea of rejection of the Cenvat credit and uphold the stand of the department that they are required to pay 10% of the value of the exempted products. Said orders of the Tribunal stand appealed against before the Allahabad High Court and is still pending. However, in the meanwhile section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 came into existence permitting the assessee to make application for permission to jurisdictional Central Excise authorities for reversal of proportionate amount of duty in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products. Such an application stand filed by the appellant and is still pending before the Commissioner.
4. The dispute in the present case relates to the refund of duty paid by the appellant on various intermediate products being manufactured by them. The said products were exempted in terms of notification No. 10/96-CE dated 23.7.96. All the said components manufactured by the appellant were exempted for use in the manufacture of bulb having value of less than Rs.10/-. The appellants contention is that they paid the duty on the said goods by mistake and the same was not required to be paid by them. Inasmuch as the appellant had taken credit of duty so paid by them, have offered to reverse the credit.
5. From the above backdrop it emerges that the reversal of credit is offered in the present case as also in the earlier case. If the appellant is allowed to reverse the credit, the same would amount to a situation as if no credit of duty paid by the appellant on the intermediate goods stand availed by them.
6. From the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that the appellants made a request to keep the proceeding in abeyance till the decision of the Tribunal. However, Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal as pre-mature. As Tribunal has already decided the matter, as on date, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision after taking into account the entire developments and including the angle of unjust enrichment and any other legal issue. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the open court ) ( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Technical) ss ??
??
??
??
4