Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Indira Printers vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 April, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Excise Appeal No.E/629/2006-Ex. Br
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.01/2006 dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi].
Date of Hearing :28.4.2010
Date of Decision: 28.4.2010
For approval and signature:
Honble Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Indira Printers Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant :Shri.B.L.Narasimhan, Advocate Present for the Respondent :Shri. Fateh Singh, DR Coram:Honble Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:28.4.2010 PER: Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. The appellants have procured duty free paper and PVC resin under Notification No.22/2003 dated 31.3.2003 being an EOU. They have produced books which is neither dutiable under the Customs Law nor under the Excise Duty. Some of which had been cleared in the DTA with the approval from the Development Commissioner. The period in question is from April 2003 to June 2005. The issue involves interpretation of second proviso to para 6 of the cited Notification. This paragraph has undergone an amendment w.e.f. 6.9.2004. Prior to that date the duty on inputs was payable if the finished goods sold in the DTA was non-excisable. After that date input duty is payable if the finished goods are either not excisable or are exempted or charged to nil rate of duty.
2. Admittedly, the finished goods are excisable but were exempted or charged nil rate of duty. Hence, we are of the view that for the period prior to 6.9.2004, the appellants are not required to pay the input duty. However, the same is payable on and after 6.9.2004. We take note of the fact that the appellants have paid the duty for the subsequent period from 6.9.2004. Since the issue involves interpretation of the Notification and also the assessments in respect of the EOU is provisional, we are of the view that there is no case of imposition of penalty on the appellants. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order in the above terms and allow the appeal partly.
(Pronounced in the Open Court) (DR.CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER (D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita