Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S Kay Bee Tex Spin Ltd on 30 November, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.E/136,184/2008
[Arising out of OIA No.MS/354-355/SRT-II/2007, dt.26.11.2007,
OIA-MS/357-358/SRT-II/2007, dt.27.11.2007, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Surat-II]
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax,
Surat-II Appellant
Vs
M/s Kay Bee Tex Spin Ltd Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri J. Nair, A.R. For Respondent: None For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.11.2015 Order No.A/ 11715-11716/2015, dt.30.11.2015 Per: P.K. Das A common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. These appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudication orders were set aside.
2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. There is no application for adjournment.
3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in these appeals is applicability of Notification No.2/95-CE, dt.04.01.95 and/or Notification No.13/98-CE, dt.02.06.98 in respect of DTA clearance of reject/waste of yarn under Para 9.9(a), 9.9(b) and 9.20 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and also imposed penalty. By the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Orders.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the case following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE, Surat-I 2006 (194) ELT 344 (Tri-Del). The issue is whether the deemed export has to be included for the purpose of determining the clearance of DTA, held that the value of deemed export is not to be excluded while determining the FOB value of export. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also relied upon the various decisions of the Tribunal on the identical issue.
5. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we find that the Revenue challenged the order of the Tribunal before Honble Supreme Court. The Honble Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Revenue as reported in 2010 (254) ELT A 98 (SC) in the matter of Commissioner Vs Amitex Silik Mills P. Ltd.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
cbb
??
??
??
??
3