Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Deccan Granites Ltd on 24 March, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/484/2007-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 03/2007 (H-I) (D) CE dated 23/02/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, 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? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 004. ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s) Versus DECCAN GRANITES LTD SY.NO.134/172/A, IDA BOLLARAM, JINNARAM MANDAL, MEDAK DT, A.P Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. S. Teli, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 24/03/2015 Date of Decision: 24/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21201 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (A), vide which he has rejected the Revenues appeal filed before him inasmuch as the order of original adjudicating authority was also in favour of the assessee. Revenue has further filed the present appeal. As per facts on records, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of polished granite slabs falling under Chapter 6807.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period relevant for the purposes of the present appeal, they were discharging duty liability in terms of Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 which provided a concessional rate of duty of 16% in respect of DTA clearances. The said Notification granted exemption in respect of the finished goods which were produced or manufactured in a 100% EOU wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India. Inasmuch as the appellant was using an epoxy resin which was imported by them, for the purpose of polishing the slabs, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997.
2. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show-cause notice dated 4.3.2005 for confirmation of demand of differential duty of Rs.10,72,716/- for the period 2000-2001 to 2003-04. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad wherein he held the demand to be barred by limitation and confirmed only duty of Rs.28,109/- falling within the limitation period and imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved with the said order of the Joint Commissioner, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (A), who also upheld the said order.
Hence the present appeal.
4. For better appreciation, the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (A) is reproduced below.
8. I find myself in agreement with the Respondents viewpoints that the adjudicating authority has rightly held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. It is a matter of fact that the Respondents use the epoxy resin in the manufacture of polished granite slabs. The respondents have claimed that the use of imported consumables was in the knowledge of the jurisdictional Central Excise officer as evident from his letter in OC No.68/2002 dated 2.2.2002 intimating them that the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE dated 5.5.98 was withdrawn if imported consumables are used and they were directed to pay the duty with effect from 1.2.2002. This fact was also not disputed by the appellant. This shows that the department was in the knowledge of the usage of the imported consumables in the manufacture of polished granite slabs. The Notification No.8/97-CE dated was issued 1.3.97 and the clarification was issued on 5.5.98, in terms of this clarification the benefit of Notification No.8/97-CE is available even if the imported consumables are used. Subsequent clarification was issued on 31.1.2002 denying the benefit of the Notification. Another clarification was issued on 28.3.2002. In view of the above clarifications issued by the CBEC it can be opined that the department is in the knowledge of use of consumables by the respondents. Hence, I am inclined to accept the adjudicating authoritys findings that the extended time period clause as envisaged under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act cannot be invoked. As against the above findings of Commissioner (A), Revenue has not been able to effectively rebut the same. If there was correspondence going on between the respondent and the jurisdictional Commissioner and if the clarification issued by the Board were contradictory for two different periods, the respondents cannot be attributed with any mala fide intention to evade payment of duty. As such, we agree with the concurrent findings of both the authorities below and find no reasons to interfere in the same. Accordingly, Revenues appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4