Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vishwanath Sugars Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 8 November, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/25176/2013-SM, E/25177/2013-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 522/2012 dated 08/10/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, BELGAUM.] M/s. Vishwanath Sugars Ltd (Now M/s. Vishwanath Sugar & Steel Industries Ltd.) Bellad-begewadi, Hukkeri BELGUAM 591 305. KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BELGAUM NO.71, CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM 590 001. KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Smt. J.N Somaiya, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 08/11/2016 Date of Decision: 08/11/2016 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21092-21093 / 2016 Per : S.S GARG Both these appeals are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) vide his order dated 8.10.2012 vide which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeals of the appellant. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit as well as denatured spirit falling under Chapter 17/22 of CETA, 1985. The appellants are also having co-generation plant in their factory, where they are generating electricity. Some part of the said electricity is sold to KPTCL and the remaining part of the said electricity is used by them in or in relation to manufacture of their final product. The appellants are availing the credit of service tax paid on inward transportation of sugarcane services. Accordingly, in the financial year 2007-08, appellant had availed the total CENVAT credit of Rs.49,49,050/- on inward transportation of sugarcane service. Appellant received a show-cause notice dated 19.9.2008 calling upon them as to why the CENVAT credit of Rs.4,07,473/- should not be denied and recovered under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and besides this, interest and penalty has also been proposed. The appellant refuted the allegation in the show-cause notice by filing the reply. However, the Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 24.12.2010 disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs.3,54,559/- under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act 1944 and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest under Rule 14. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeals of the appellant but reduced the penalty to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3,54,559/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeals.
3. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the records.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order is not sustainable in law and the same is opposed to the various decisions rendered by the higher judicial fora. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions.
(a) UOI vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd.: 2015 (322) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.)
(b) Gularia Chini Mills vs. UOI: 2014 (34) S.T.R. 175 (All.)
(c) Final Order No.20836/2016 dated 23.9.2016 passed in case of M/s. Venkateshwara Power Project Ltd.
(d) Final Order No.20712/2016 dated 1.9.2016 passed in case of M/s. Hiranyakeshi S.S.K. Niyamit.
(e) Final Order No.20230/2016 dated 9.2.2016 passed in case of M/s. Hiranyakeshi S.S. Niyamit.
5. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
6. I have gone through the judgments cited supra and I am of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra in terms of the decision of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. vs. UOI: 2014 (300) E.L.T. 372 (All.) wherein the Board Circular No.904/24/2009-CX dated 28.10.2009 requiring reversal of credit or payment of amount in terms of Rule 6 stands quashed. Besides this case, the issue is also been settled in favour of the assessee in the following cases:
(i) UOI vs. DSCL Sugar Ltd. (supra)
(ii) Gularia Chini Mills (supra)
(iii) CCE vs. Shree Datta SSK Ltd.: 2015 (4) TMI 215 (CESTAT) 6.1 Following the ratio of the above said cases, I am of the opinion that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant and therefore I set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in open court on 8.11.2016.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 4