Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Siddheshwar Ssk Ltd vs Cce, Aurangabad on 1 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. 1
E/Rom/2298/07 In APPEAL NO.E/1568/04 & E/1569/04
(Arising out of Order-in- Original/Appeal No. BPS(25)57/2004/349 dtd. 27.1.2004 & BPS(27)128/2004/348 dtd 27.1.04 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad
For approval and signature:
Honble Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
============================================================
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?
============================================================= The Siddheshwar SSK Ltd.
:
Appellant VS CCE, Aurangabad Respondent Appearance Shri K.P.Joshi, Advocate for Appellant Shri P.K.Katiyar Authorized Representative (DR) CORAM:
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Date of decision 01/02/08 ORDER NO.
Per : Jyoti Balasundaram Vide Final Order No.A/809 & 810/C.IV/SMB/2007 dtd. 11.6.07, Appeal No. 1568 & 1569/04 have been dismissed. According to the applicants herein, although the orders have been passed in both the appeals, only facts in Appeal No. E/1568/04 have been set out and therefore, there is no disposal of Appeal No. E/1569/04.
2. On hearing both sides, I find that the contention of the appellants is correct for the reason that the entire order deals only with one appeal. I, therefore, allow the present application by holding that the order already passed on 11.6.07 is to be treated as the order disposing of Appeal No.E/1568/04.
3. Now I take up Appeal No.E/1569/04 for hearing. The issue in this appeal is the same as in the earlier appeal. In this case, 3 show cause notices one dated 18.3.97 and two notices dated 21.4.97 raising total demand of Rs. 6,58,739/- were issued. Notices also proposed imposition of penalty. The differential duty demand was raised in terms of provisions of Rule 57CC read with Rule 57 I of Cen.Excise Rules, 1944 for the period from 25.10.96 to 30.9.97. It was also alleged that the appellants have maintained a consolidated accounts in respect of inputs to be used in exempted as well as dutiable final products, and therefore they were required to pay an amount equal to 8% on the price of exempted product viz. Ethyl Alcohol at the time of its clearance in terms of the provisions of Rule 57CC(1) but went on reversing proportionate Modvat credit on the basis of actual credit. The notices were adjudicated by the Asstt.Commissioner who confirmed the demand and imposed penalty of Rs. 70,000/- which order was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). Hence this appeal by the assessee.
4. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled against the appellants vide Tribunals order in Appeal No. E/1568/04. The Tribunal has sustained the demand and penalty. Following the ratio of the above order of the Tribunal, I uphold the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) and reject the appeal.
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram Vice President pv 2