Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Messrs P &Amp B Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Vadodara-I on 4 August, 2021

     CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
               WEST ZONAL BENCH : AHMEDABAD

                            REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 3

                         EXCISE Appeal No. 11964 of 2013

[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No PJ-88-2013-14 dated 20.05.2013 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise-VADODARA-I]

M/s. P & B Pharmaceuticals Limited                                 .... Appellant
Shakarpur, Behind Railway Station,
Khambhat, ANAND, GUJARAT

                                            VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-1                    .... Respondent

1st Floor, Central Excise Building, Race Course Circle, Vadodara, Gujarat-390007 APPEARANCE :

Shri Amal Dave, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rakesh Bhaskar, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. A/12299 / 2021 DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2021 DATE OF DECISION : 04.08.2021 RAMESH NAIR :

The issue involved is that whether the appellant is required to pay 10% of value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Shri Amal Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset submits that the appellant have been paying proportionate Cenvat credit attributed to exempted goods from time to time at their own and where there is any delay, interest was also paid. Therefore, the demand of 10% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, is not sustainable. He submits that in the appellant's own case, in identical issue, the CESTAT has passed three decisions dated 26.08.2010, 30.07.2015 and 06.10.2016. He further submits that this demand involved extended period of 2007-2009 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 15.04.2011. Therefore, this demand is clearly time-barred. He relied on the following judgments:-

EXCISE Appeal No. 11964 of 2013

(a) M/s. P&B Pharma Limited CESTAT Ahmedabad order No. A/1344-

1345/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 26.08.2010.

(b) M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals Limited CESTAT Ahmedabad order No. A/11343/2015 dated 30.07.2015.

(c) M/s. P&B Pharmaceuticals Limited CESTAT Ahmedabad order No. A/11094/2016 dated 06.10.2016.

(d) Star Agriwarehousing & Collateral Management vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur - 2021 (44) GSTL 271 (Tri. Del.)

(e) Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Ahd-I - 2014 (311) ELT 587 (Tri. Ahmd.)

(f) Nizam Sugar Factory vs. Collector of C. Ex AP - 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC).

3. Shri Rakesh Bhaskar, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute about reversal of credit on input services attributed to exempted goods. It is also observed that appellant have paid Cenvat credit and wherever there is delay in such payment, the appellant paid interest. In this position, it should be considered as if the appellant have not availed Cenvat credit. Accordingly, Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall not be invoked. We find that in the appellant's own case, this Tribunal vide order dated 26.08.2010 decided the same issue as under:-

"4. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the law on the disputed issue is clear by the various decisions referred supra. As regards the fact of reversal of modvat credit, we find from the impugned order in original passed by the Additional Commissioner that the factum of reversal of credit amount relatable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product stands accepted by him and there is no dispute about the same, in which case there is no need for remanding the matter for verification of reversal amount.

5. In view of the above, the impugned orders have been set-aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief to the appellants."

EXCISE Appeal No. 11964 of 2013

5. In view of the above decision, the issue is no more res-integra.

Accordingly, we, following the above referred Tribunal decision in the appellant's own case, in order dated 26.08.2010, set-aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

(Pronounced in the open court 04.08.2021) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) (Raju) Member (Technical) KL