Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd vs Cce,Delhi-Iii on 22 January, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-SM
Excise Appeal No. E/2630/2008-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.224/ANS/PCK/2008 dated 14.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi-III].
M/s. Sainsons Paper Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE,Delhi-III Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.A. Jaju, Advocate Present for the Respondent:ShriS.K. Panda, Jt.CDR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing:22.01.2013 FINAL ORDER NO.55392/2013 DATED:22/01/2013 PER: D.N.PANDA It is given to understand by the appellant that duty element has already been deposited. When the appellant claimed that certain goods which are enumerated in para 5 of the appellate order were used for manufacture of certain goods, which are claimed to be capital goods, it was not successful in appeal. So also in appeal penalty of Rs.2,000/- imposed in adjudication was enhanced to Rs.2,13,674/-. Ld. Counsel mentions that raw-materials used have direct nexus to the capital goods manufactured and the appellant although made averment that technical drawings were available to supports its case, Revenue did not call for that. Therefore, the appellate order does not sustain.
2. Revenue submits that the appellate order is very clear as to how the goods manufactured were not capital goods. Therefore, first appellate order needs no interference on both count that is duty and penalty.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. The appellant had made an averment that it can satisfy the authority producing the technical drawings which are relevant and most pertinent for manufacture of the goods in question. This is exhibited by order of adjudication dealing with the defence reply of the appellant. In all fairness, the appellant deserves opportunity to produce the technical drawings, if any, and satisfy the authority as to the integral connection of the inputs to the goods manufactured, dependability thereof and relevancy of such material for manufacture. It should not be lost sight of that the goods manufactured is necessarily to be the capital goods coming within the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 to decide the issue. If the goods manufactured does not come within any of the Tariff entry, the appellant shall loose its case because the inputs were not the raw-
material for any finished goods which is the case of the appellant. In the light of above, matter is remanded to the ld. Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue afresh keeping in view judicial pronouncement in the following cases:-
(1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C.), (2) Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II vs. SLR Steels Ltd. reported in 2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar.) (3) Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi-III vs. CCE, Delhi-III reported in 2011 (270) ELT 465 (S.C.)
5. The appellant shall be entitled to the opportunity of arguing both on facts and law.
6. If appropriate penalty is leviable, Authority shall also take into consideration the observations of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for imposition of the same if that was the basis of show cause notice and fitness of the circumstances warrant such imposition.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita 3 2