Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Burn Standard Co. Ltd vs Cce, Salem on 30 July, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/S/132/2010 and E/242/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1/2010 (Commissioner) dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member
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?
M/s. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Salem Respondent
Appearance Ms. Maithili, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri Parmod Kumar, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 30.07.2012 Date of Decision: 30.07.2012 Stay Order No. _____________ Final Order No. ____________ Per Mathew John The dispute involved in this case is that the appellants were using inputs in the manufacture of both exempted and dutiable products and the appellants did not follow procedures prescribed in Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and did not maintain separate accounts in respect of goods used in the manufacture of exempted products. Consequently, the Revenue proposed to demand 10% of the value of exempted products as per provision in Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The counsel for appellants submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April 2008 to December 2008. She also submits that retrospective amendment in CENVAT Credit Rule (6) done by Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 is applicable for this period and, therefore, reversal of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted products is sufficient discharge of their liability. This case was adjudicated prior to such retrospective amendment in the said rule and the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for 10% of the price of the exempted goods for the reason that provisions of the rules as it existed at that time was not complied with. It is her contention that they had systems in place by which the quantity of inputs which were going into the manufacture of exempted products could be correctly quantified and they have reversed proper amount of credit. It is submitted that they have submitted necessary application as per Section 73 of the Finance Act, 2010 and such application is pending for decision.
3. Learned AR for Revenue submits that he does not dispute the fact that, if proper reversal of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products is done, there is no scope for further demand. However, the question whether credit has been properly reversed needs to be examined.
4. Considered the arguments from both sides. We find that the matter has to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010. So, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for deciding the matter afresh in the light of the retrospective amendment in Rules along with the application filed by the Appellants under Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010. The stay application also gets disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Mathew John) (Ashok Jindal)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex
1
3