Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mrf Limited vs Cce,C&St, Hyderabad-I on 31 January, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench Court I Appeal No: E/211/2008 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No: 39/2007 (H-I) CE, dated 11.12.2007 passed by CCCE&ST (Appeals-I), Hyderabad) MRF Limited ..Appellant(s) Vs. CCE,C&ST, Hyderabad-I ..Respondent(s)
Appearance None for the Appellant. Shri D.B. Nageswara Rao, Asst. Commr./AR for the Respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Honble Mr. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 31.01.2018 Date of Decision: 31.01.2018 FINAL ORDER No: A/30221/2018 [Order per: M.V. Ravindran]
1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No: 39/2007 (H-I) CE, dated 11.12.2007.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant nor there is any request for adjournment. Since the appeal is of 2008, we take up the matter for disposal even in the absence of any representation.
3. Heard Ld. DR and perused the records.
4. On perusal of records, we noticed that the issue is regarding refund of excess payment of duty by the appellant (according to them) in respect of items cleared by them by discharging the duty liability under protest by applying the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, instead of their claim of applicability of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for the products cleared.
5. It is noted from the records that appellants had cleared Rubber tyres and inner tubes claiming them not to be parts and discharged the duty liability as per Section 4 of CE Act, 1944; also on an understanding that these goods having been cleared to the original equipment manufacturers, provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act are not applicable. On being informed by the department, they discharged the duty liability under Section 4A of CE Act, 1944 under protest. They claimed refund of the amount already paid by them. The said refund claims came to be rejected. It is seen from the records that the rejection of refund claim is on the ground that notification No. 11/2006 being issued in respect of parts, components and assemblies of automobiles needs to be valued under section 4A, hence valuation under section 4A is correct procedure to be adopted.
6. We find that both the lower authorities have not gone into details of the case and the issue needs reconsideration on the face of the fact that Revenue officers had specifically stated in a correspondence to appellant that rubber tyres, interchangeable tyre treads, tyre flaps and inner tubes will not get covered under parts or accessories under notification No. 11/2006-CE. It seems that both lower authorities have not considered this communication/clarification in its right perspective while arriving at a conclusion.
7. In view of the foregoing, in our considered opinion, the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. Without recording any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all the issues open, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
8. Appeal stands disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) vrg (1) Appeal No: E/211/2008