Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Dcw Ltd vs Cce, Tirunelveli on 5 June, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/S/124/2009 and E/190/2009
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 79-80/2009 dated 27.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, 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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. DCW Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Tirunelveli Respondent
Appearance Shri C. Seethapathy, Advocate for the Appellants Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 05.06.2009 Date of Decision: 05.06.2009 Stay Order No. _____________ Final Order No. ____________ The learned counsel for the appellants, M/s DCW submits that the issue involved in the appeal has already been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee for an earlier period. The appeal proper is therefore taken up. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the demand for recovery of 50% of the education cess paid on capital goods, received by the appellants during the period March to December 2006, availed in excess in the year of receipt. The order of the original authority confirmed demand of Rs.3,86,183/- along with applicable interest and the same has been sustained in the impugned order. The appellants had availed 100% of the education cess paid in the year of receipt of capital goods instead of taking 50%. Vide Final Order No. 393/2009 dated 3.4.2009 this Tribunal had rejected the appeal filed by M/s. DCW against similar order demanding excess 50% credit of cess availed by the appellants along with applicable interest for an earlier period. In the circumstances, after hearing both sides, the appeal is rejected following the above precedent. Accordingly, the stay application also gets disposed of. It is made clear that the appellants shall be eligible for availing credit of the balance 50% availed in excess in the year of receipt of the capital goods in the succeeding financial year as per law. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (P. KARTHIKEYAN) Member (T) Rex ??
??
??
??
2