Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai Ii vs M/S. Jumbo Bags Ltd on 8 September, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/1130/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 34/2002 dated 25.9.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chennai II Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Jumbo Bags Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR), for the Appellant Ms. Prema, Company Secretary for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 08.09.2014 Date of Decision: 08.09.2014 Final Order No. 40660/2014 Per P.K. Das Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai II Commissionerate. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.1,68,27,947/- along with interest and imposed a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/-. The respondents are a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Flexible Intermediate Bulk Container (Poly Propelene woven sacks). By show-cause notice dated 3.10.2000, there was a proposal for demand of duty of Rs.1,77,86,341/- along with interest and penalty. It has been alleged that the respondent had cleared Flexible Intermediate Bulk containers which are PP/LLDP/LDP/UV commonly known as Jumbo Bags during the period from 23.9.1999 to 5.8.2000 in DTA against receipt of foreign exchange. It has been further alleged that no exemption from payment of central excise duty is available under any of the exemption notifications.
3. The learned AR for Revenue submits that Revenue filed appeal against the impugned order insofar as the differential amount of duty was dropped. It is submitted that the respondent filed appeal against the confirmation of demand of duty before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by Final Order No. 430/2005 dated 23.3.2005 in appeal No. E/34/2003 allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue which is reported in 2005 (184) ELT 314. On perusal of the final order dated 23.3.2005 of the Tribunal, the relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below:-
In the light of what is stated above, we are clear in our mind that duty demand is not sustainable. Once duty demand is not sustainable, there is no occasion for penalty also. The impugned order is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. We make it clear that we are not going into the alternate arguments advanced by the appellants since we are satisfied that the demand is contrary to the relevant legal provisions as discussed.
4. We find that the Tribunal already set aside the impugned order and the appeal of the respondent was allowed with consequential relief. The learned AR for Revenue submits that the Revenue has filed appeal before the Honble Supreme Court against the final order of the Tribunal, which is still pending. We find that the impugned order has already been set aside by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal filed by the Revenue against the same impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(R. PERIASAMI) (P.K. DAS)
Technical Member Judicial Member
Rex