Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Indore on 1 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 3165 of 2005-EX[DB] [Arising out of Order-In-Original No 57/COMMR/CEX/IND/05 dated 24.06.2005 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Indore (MP)] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, 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? M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Indore Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate, DR, for the Appellants Ms. S. Bector, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision : 01.05.2013 FINAL ORDER NO. 56324 /2013-Ex(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of tyres and tubes and were availing Cenvat credit of AED (GSI). The total credit of Rs.79,8667 accrued during the period December, 1997 to March, 2000. The amendment came in the law with effect from 1.3.03 allowing the assessee to utilize such credit for payment.
2. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant vide show cause notice dated 11.10.03 for recovery of credit accumulated prior to 1.4.2000. The appellant did not disputed said payment and infact repaid the credit on 18.10.2004. The Commissioner confirmed such repayment of credit along with interest.
3. Learned advocate is not disputing the repayment of cumulated credit but submits that subsequently in terms of provisions of Section 88 of the Finance Act, 2004, special procedure was laid down as amended by Finance Act 2005 prescribing the procedure for recoveries to be made and installment was extended to the assessee. It also provided that Central Excise officer would separately determine the amount of interest on the amount of credit utilized for paying the Central Excise duty in accordance with the provisions detailed therein.
4. The sole ground of the appellant is that such procedure has not been followed by the Revenue. However, we find no merits in the above contention inasmuch as the show cause notice had already been issued to the appellant in the year 2003. Infact the appellant had already redebited the Cenvat credit in the year 2004. As such, subsequent procedure prescribed in the Finance Act, 2005 cannot be held to be applicable to the assessees case. The Revenue, having already issued show cause notice could not have issued a fresh notice for the same cause again. Similarly, determination of interest in terms of Section 11AB is in accordance with the law and we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner. Accordingly we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2