Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jolly Board Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs ... on 30 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/85001, 86087, 87748/13 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. AV(254) 184/2012 dated 16-11-2012, OIA No. AV/(04) 239/2013 dated 2-1-2013 & OIA. No. AV(119) 95/2013 dated 25-4-2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
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?
======================================================= M/s. Jolly Board Ltd :
Appellant VS Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad :
Respondent Appearance Shri. H.S. Shirsat, Consultant for the Appellants Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 30/12/2016
Date of decision: 30/12/2016
ORDER NO.
The issue in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitle for the refund under Rule 5 in respect of duty/service tax paid on the input or input service used in the manufacturer of final product which have been exported. The lower authorities denied the refund on the ground that the export goods is exempted therefore on the export of exempted goods refund under Rule 5 is not admissible.
2. Shri. H.S. Shirsat, Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that on the same issue in the appellants own case this tribunal vide judgments reported as 2015(321) ELT 502] allowed the appeal holding that even though exports goods exempted refund under Rule 5, CCR, 2002 is admissible. This decision of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue before the Honble High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench under Appeal No. 6/04. The Honble High Court vide order dated 2-9-2016 dismissed the Revenues appeal and upheld the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the issue in the appellants own case now stands settled in their favour therefore the appeal also deserves to be allowed.
3. Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) Appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, I find that as per the Bombay High Court judgment dated 2-9-2016 the issue has been decided in favour of the appellant and issue is no longer res-integra. Following the ratio of the Honble Bombay High Court judgment, this appeals are also deserve to be allowed. I therefore set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court ) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 2 E/85001, 86087, 87748/13