Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Concrete Products & Construction ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/16/2009
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.51/2007 (M-II) dated 31.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
M/s.Concrete Products & Construction Co.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. 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 Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities? :
Appearance :
Shri P.C. Anand, Cons.
Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 19.02.2010 Date of decision : 19.02.2010 Final Order No.____________ Duty demand has been confirmed on railway sleepers manufactured by the assessees herein and destroyed in the factory of the assessees during the process of destruction test. Penalty has also been imposed.
2. I have heard both sides and find merit in the submission of the assessees that they are not required to pay duty nor liable to penalty in the light of the Tribunals decision in the light of the Tribunals decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Vs Exide Industries Ltd. [2008-TIOL-32]. There is no dispute that the assessees have maintained accounts of destruction of all the sleepers during the process of destruction testing. The fact that the assessees received money even for the destroyed sleepers is no ground to hold that duty is payable as demand of duty is linked to manufacture of goods cleared and not linked to any payment received for goods destroyed.
3. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 19-02-2010 ??
??
??
??
1 2