Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Mumbai Iii vs M/S. Raymond Apparel Ltd on 11 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI. APPEAL NO. E/576/07-Mum and E/CO/52/07-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-appeal No.AT/M-III/73/2007 dated 8.3.2007 passed by CCE (Appeals) Mumbai II) For approval and signature: Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble 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? 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? ====================================================== CCE, Mumbai III Appellant Vs. M/s. Raymond Apparel Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri D.P.Mukhopadhyay SDR For Appellant Shri Punit Gupta C.A. For Respondent CORAM: Shri K.K.Agarwal, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 11.1.2008 Date of Decision : 11.1.2008 O R D E R NO. Per : K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) :
1. This is revenues appeal. The short issue involved in this case is respondents have cleared inputs and capital goods after reversing credit taken on the same which was done by them at the end of the month as per provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They were issued show cause notice stating that the credit should not have been reversed in respect of duty payment under fortnightly and monthly basis as the case may be. Demand for the interest was confirmed by the lower adjudicating authority but was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KLRF Textiles v. CCE, Tirunelveli 2005 (188) ELT 169 (Tri. Chennai ) and the CESTAT decision against the order No.AT/RGD/400 to 402 dated 25.7.2005 in the case of Pidilite Industries Ltd. 2006-TIOL-649-CESTAT-MUM wherein under similar circumstances appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.
2. I find that in the present appeal, the revenue has not dealt with the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) and simply reiterating the contents of the show cause notice. Since the decisions cited above are in favour of the respondent and they have not been rebutted by the revenue, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. Cross objections filed by the respondent is accordingly disposed off.
(Pronounced and dictated in court) (K.K.Agarwal) Member (Technical) .ts. / 20057607110108MM