Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd, Raigad on 19 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/3906/05 [Arising out of Order-in- Original No. 66-68 and 68A, 68B, 68C, 68D, 68E, 68F, 68G & 68H(21-23 and 23A TO 23h/RT) Commr/04-05 dated 24-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs& Service Tax, Raigad] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Raigad
:
Appellant
VS
M/s. Shree Venkatesh Steel Ltd, Raigad
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Hitesh Shah, Commissioner(A.R.) for the Appellants
Shri. Balu Mutke, Consultant for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member(Technical)
Date of hearing: 19/9/2016
Date of decision: 2/1 /2017
ORDER NO.
Per : Ramesh Nair
The present appeal filed by the revenue against the order in original no. 66-68 and 68a to 68h (21- 23A to 23H /RT) COMMR. / 04-05 dated 24/12/2004 passed by the Commissioner Of Central Excise and Customs, Raigad.
2. The fact of the case is that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely Bars and Rods of non alloy steel falling under chapter 7214.90 and Bars and Rods of other alloy steel falling under Chapter 72. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, disallowed the Modvat credit on the ground that the goods manufactured by the Respondent being notified goods in terms of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the respondent should pay duty under Section 3A of Central Excise Act,1944 and not entitle for modvat credit. The claim of the respondent before the adjudicating authority was that since they manufactured more than 50% non notified goods, they are not required to pay duty in terms of Section 3A. The present appeal of revenue is on the ground that the adjudicating authority has not passed order on the issue of disallowance of credit of accumulated credit balance when the respondent supposed to opt for Section 3A and demand of duty on the job work as the respondent is not entitled for exemption notification No.214/86-C.E.
3. Shri Balu Mutke Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted a letter from the Respondent according to which the respondent had also filed an appeal before this Tribunal which was allowed vide Tribunals order No.A/2060/WZB/MUM/2005/C-III/EB dated 16.12.2005 whereby it was held that since the respondent is producing predominantly non notified goods, they are entitled to discharge duty liability for the entire quantity of goods under the normal procedure under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and they are also eligible to take Modvat credit on the inputs used.
4. Shri Hitesh Shah, Ld. Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal.
5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of record, we find that the issue on merit has been settled in favour of respondent vide this Tribunals order dated 16.12.2005. In terms of this order, the respondents payment of duty under section 3 is in order and provision of Section 3A is not applicable. Therefore in our view, consequent the Tribunals order dated 16.12.2005, the respondent is entitled for Modvat credit as well as job work Notification No.214/86-C.E. Accordingly, the revenues appeal which is on these two issue does not survive.
6. The revenues appeal is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in court on ___________________) C.J. Mathew Member (Technical) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 2 E/3906/05