Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur I vs M/S Jajoo Iron Re-Rollers (P) Ltd on 25 February, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 25/02/2016. DATE OF DECISION : 25/02/2016. Excise Appeal No. 2068 of 2006 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 68 (MPM)/CE/JPR-I/2006 dated 17/02/2006 passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 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 would 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 of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? CCE, Jaipur I Appellant Versus M/s Jajoo Iron Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR) for the appellant.
Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 50894/2016 Dated : 25/02/2016 Per. B. Ravichandran :-
The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 17/02/2006 of Commissioner (Appeals I), Jaipur. The impugned order is passed as per remand directions of the Tribunal vide final order dated 29/5/2003. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of MS Bars and Angles liable to Central Excise duty. Consequent upon stock verification made in the premises of the respondent, certain shortage of MS items were noticed; proceedings were initiated against them which resulted in the confirmation of demand of Rs. 25,538/- and imposition of equal amount of penalty. The seized goods were also confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 08/6/2001 allowed the appeal. The Department filed appeal before the Tribunal which resulted in the above-mentioned final order remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, the present impugned order came to be issued. The Commissioner (Appeals) examined the classification of products in dispute and on applying the Chapter Note 1 (k) of Chapter 72 and other relevant parameters passed order classifying the product under heading 7214.90. In para 7 of the impugned order he examined in detail the reason for his conclusion. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeal. In the grounds of appeal, two points were taken by the Revenue. The first one is relating the non-applicability of the Tribunals order in the case of Bhushan Steel Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 330 (Tribunal) and the second one is regarding applicability of Chapter Note 1 (k) to the impugned goods. As already noted, we find the applicability of Chapter Note 1 (k) to the facts of the present case has been examined in detail in the impugned order. There is no contest of the finding or the reasoning followed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the present appeal. Since, the Commissioner (Appeals) examined the factual proposition regarding the dimension of the product and applied the Chapter Note to arrive at the decision and the Revenue appeal not having anything to state against such factual finding, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court.) (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??2