Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Biocon Ltd on 11 June, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - Court - I
(Single Member Bench)
Date of Hearing & decision: 11.06.2013
Central Excise Appeal No. 2890/2011
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. JMJ/26/2011 dated 07.07.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) LTU, Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters 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 the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU
Bangalore
..Appellant
Versus
M/s. Biocon Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Mr S Teli, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER No. /2013 The respondent availed CENVAT credit of duty of excise in respect of input Chondrotin Sulphate Sodium. The duty had been paid at 40% Adv. However the Revenue took a view that this is not correct and the correct rate of duty payable on this input was only 8% and in view of the provisions of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 which provides that credit of duty of excise leviable and paid can only be taken as credit and in this case whatever leviable and payable was only 8%, proceedings were initiated. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order took the view that the credit taken by the appellant was in order and for this purpose he relied upon the following 6 decisions of the Honble High Court/Tribunal:
1) CCE Vs. Perfect Synthetics - 2006 (206) ELT 71 (P&H)
2) CCE Vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2006 (202) ELT 753 (Mad.)
3) CCE Vs. Jyoti Ltd. - 2008 (223) ELT 171 (Guj.)
4) CCE Vs. Tube Investments of India Ltd. - 2004 (176) ELT 363 (T)
5) IOC Ltd. CCE - 2006 (206) ELT 533 (Tri.-Bang.)
6) CCE Vs. Swaraj Automotives Ltd. - 2002 (139) ELT 504 (P&H)
2. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. Heard the learned DR. Following the decisions that duty leviable and payable should have only been taken as credit, there is no other submission. There is no submission as to why decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) to come to the conclusion should not be followed in the memorandum of appeal nor the learned AR is able to show any contrary decision. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly appeal is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) iss