Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur-L vs M/S. Shakti Malt Pvt. Ltd on 5 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 3268/2010-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 310(DK)CE/JPR-l/2010 dated, dated 25.06.2010 passed by CCE, Jaipur-l]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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, Jaipur-l Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Shakti Malt Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.S. Negi, DR for the Appellant None DR for the Respondent Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 05.11.2013 FO ORDER NO. _58242/2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri M.S. Negi, learned DR appearing for the revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent.
2. It is seen that the respondent were engaged in the manufacturer of Barley Malt and barley malt Roots came into existence during the course of manufacture of the final product, Which were being cleared by the assessee without payment of duty. Revenue raised a demand of amount Rs. 10% of the value of exempted goods in terms of Rule 6(3) (b) of Cenvat credit Rules and the same was confirmed by original adjudicating authority.
3. On appeal Commissioner (Appeals) took note of Bombay High Court decision in the case of M/s. Rally India Ltd. reported as 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.) and held that liability to pay the said amount would not arise in respect of exempted by product.
4. Revenue in their memo of appeal has again contested the matter on legal provisions but has not referred to the fact as to why Bombay High Court decision would not be applicable. I find that the Bombay High Court decision clearly covered disputed issue and has been rightly follow by Commissioner (Appeals). There is no merits in the Revenues appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti*