Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Voltamp Transformers Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 September, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad -ooOoo- Appeal No. : E/11413-11415/2013 Arising out of OIA-SRP-484-486-VDR-II-2013 dt 27/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Appeal)-VADODARA-II M/s Voltamp Transformers Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Appeal)-VADODARA-II - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Assessee : Shri Dhaval Shah, Advocate For Revenue : Shri S Chitkara, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter 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 CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 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 CORAM :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 16/9/2016 ORDER No. A/10986-10988/2016 dt 16/9/2016 Per : Dr D.M. Misra, Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. These appeals are filed against OIA-SRP-484-486-VDR-II-2013 dt 27/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Appeal)-VADODARA-II.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant during the period Jan 2010 to December 2011 had cleared Copper Rods and Wires to job workers under rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The job workers after carrying out the necessary process returned the converted goods to the Appellant with a process loss of 2%(approx.) of the weight of the Copper initially. Consequently, Cenvat Credit on the differential quantity of copper rods was demanded with proposal for imposition of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with equivalent penalty. The Ld Commissioner (Appeal) rejected their appeals. Hence, the present appeals.
5. The Ld Advocate for the appellant, Shri Dhaval K Shah, submitted that the issue is squarely covered in their own case for the period 2007-08 to 2008-09 vide Tribunal order No A/10147/WZB/AHD/2013 dt 23.1.2013.
6. The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeal).
7. I find that the very same issue was already decided by this Tribunal in favour of the appellant for the earlier period vide order No A/10147/WZB/AHD/2013 dt 23.1.2013. I do not see any reason to deviate from the said decision. Accordingly, following the said decision, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeals allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2