Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Integrated Engineering And Exports Pvt ... vs Commisioner Of Gst&Amp;Ce(Salem) on 13 August, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/42351/2017
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.227/2016 (CXA-1), dated 21.10.2016
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-1), Chennai]
M/s. INTEGRATED ENGINEERING AND APPELLANT
EXPORTS P. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT
E/41059/2018 [Arising out of Pre-Deposit-cum-Appeal Order No.29/2013 (M-III)(PD), dated 18.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai] M/s. INTEGRATED ENGINEERING AND APPELLANT EXPORTS P. LTD.
Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT E/41060/2018 Arising out of Pre-Deposit-cum-Appeal Order No.24/2013 (M-III)(PD), dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai] M/s. INTEGRATED ENGINEERING AND APPELLANT EXPORTS P. LTD.
Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM RESPONDENT Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Meganathan, Cons. For the Respondent Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) CORAM:
Hon'ble Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Judicial Member Date of hearing/decision 13-08-2018 2 E/42351/2017 E/41059/2018 & E/41060/2018 FINAL ORDER NOs. 42245-42247 / 2018 The issue involved in these appeals is the demand raised under Rule 8 (3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The demand, interest and penalty have been imposed for the reasons that the appellant has contravened Rule 8 (3A) of the said Rules by utilizing Cenvat credit for discharge of duty during the period of default. The said issue has been decided in favour of the appellant in the case of M/s. Indsur Global Ltd., Vs Union of India reported at 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.) and by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Union of India reported in 2015 (323) E.L.T.489 (Mad.). However, the same has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Vs M/s. Titan Industries reported in 2016 (341) A.155 (S.C.). In the event, I am of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority, who is directed to reconsider the matter pursuant to the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court on the said issue.
2. The impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S) JUDICIAL MEMBER ksr 13-08-2018 3 E/42351/2017 E/41059/2018 & E/41060/2018 DRAFT Remarks I II III Date of 13.08.2018 dictation Draft Order 13.08.2018
- Date of typing Fair Order .08.2018 Typing Date of number 14.08.2018 and date of dispatch 4 E/42351/2017 E/41059/2018 & E/41060/2018