Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd on 6 October, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appeal No. E/328/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/470/NGP-I/2006 dated 30.11.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Nagpur) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ================================================
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 : No 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?
Commissioner of Central Excise Nagpur Appellant Vs. Excel Controlinkage Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Appearance:
Shri V.K. Shastri, Asst. Commr (AR) for appellant Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 06.10.2015 Date of Decision: 06.10.2015 ORDER NO Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/470/NGP-I/2006 dated 30.11.2006.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondent has correctly availed the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 during the financial year 2002-03. It was the case of the Revenue in the show-cause notice that the appellant had manufactured various products and cleared the said finished goods by availing the benefit of Notification 8/2002-CE but the said finished goods bore the marking of cable craft. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand raised on the ground that the respondent was assembling the raw materials/inputs to manufacture mechanical control cables/lever assembly having brand name of cable craft which is owned by a foreign company namely M/s. Tuthill Controls Ltd., U.K. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demands but the first appellate authority set aside the demands on the ground that the appellant had manufactured these products in the rural area and the benefit of Notification 8/2002-CE are applicable as Tehsildar of the Village and the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur have given certificates that the factory of the appellant falls under Rural area as defined in the Notification No. 8/2002-CE.
4. We find that the show-cause notice as well as the findings of the first appellate authority clearly record that the benefit of Notification No.8/2002-CE is denied on the ground that the appellant is not eligible to avail the benefit as they are affixing the brand name of cable craft which does not belong to them. Be that as it may, the said Notification specifically exempts the goods on which brand name or trade name are affixed if the said goods are manufactured in a factory located in rural area. The said Notification also defines the Rural area, which we reproduce.
Rural area means the area comprised in a village as defined in the land revenue records excluding
(i) the area under any municipal committee, municipal corporation, town area committee, cantonment board or notified area committee or,
(ii) any area that may be notified as an urban area by Central Govt. or State Govt. 4.1 It is the case of the Revenue that the appellants factory is situated in MIDC notified by the Government of Maharashtra hence falls under the category of exclusively carved out by a Notification. We have considered the submissions made by learned D.R. on this point and various notifications & relevant clauses. We find that the first appellate authority has correctly recorded the findings as to whether the factory falls under rural area which we reproduce. 28. In support of this the appellant submits that they have informed the department under their letter dated 10.04.2002, the fact that their unit is located in the rural area for which he also enclosed certificate dated 08.04.2002 from Tehsildar Hingna and another certificate dated 19.4.2002 from Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur. I have perused the correspondence as above made to the department including the certificates issued; certifying the units to be located in Mouza (Village) Nildoh, Tehsil Hingna. This claim of the appellant has not been controverted by the department nor the department came up with any evidence to prove that area under consideration is not rural area.
4.1 It can be seen from the above reproduced observation of the first appellate authority, that there was a certificate issued by the Tehsildar of the Village that the factory of the appellant is located in the rural area and another certificate which has been issued by the Regional Officer, MIDC, Nagpur to the same effect. It is not the case of the Revenue, the Regional Officer, MIDC could not have issued the said certificate indicating that the respondents factory is located in rural area. As against such a specific findings of the first appellate authority, we find that the Grounds of Appeal does not provide any evidence controverting such a certificate. We also find that the Grounds of Appeal is not contesting the genuineity of such certificate produced by the appellant.
4.2 In view of the foregoing and in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and uphold the impugned order.
05. The appeal is rejected.
(Dictated in Court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
1 5Appeal No. E/328/07