Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Madurai vs M/S. Fine Cables Industries on 10 February, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/130/2003, C/131/03 & C/CO/4/03
(Arising out of Order in Original No. 9 & 10/2002 dated 21.02.2002, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, 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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Madurai : Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s. Fine Cables industries : Respondent
2. M/s. Fine Telelink Cables Appearance Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR for the appellant Shri M. Karthikeyan, Consultant, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 10.02.2010 Date of decision : 10.02.2010 FINAL ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue involved in both the appeals is common and hence taken up together and disposed by a common order
2. The assessees herein had imported Glass Fibre Roving (in short FGR) by paying customs duty at concessional rate of 5% as available under Sl. No. 231(C) of Notifications No. 23/98 dated 02.06.98 and No. 20/99 dated 28.02.99 and used the same in the manufacture of Self Supportive Drop wire (herein after referred to as SSDW). The benefit was sought to be denied on the ground that SSDW manufactured by the assessees was used by the Department of Telecommunications only as a connecting wire from the telephone poles to the premises of the consumers while telecommunication cables are either optical fibres or copper-wire signal-carriers for voice, video and data transmission. Show Cause Notices proposing recovery of differential duty by denying the benefits of above mentioned notifications were issued; the notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, who held against the assessees on merits namely that the SSDW manufactured by them was not telecom grade FRP but extended the benefit of time bar to the assessees and also held that he has no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for recovery of duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue is in appeal against the findings on limitation and jurisdiction as it is not required for the revenue to challenge the finding that goods manufactured are not of telecom grade FRP.
3. We have heard both sides.
4. We find that the review order in both the cases is dated 20.03.2003 while the impugned orders of the Commissioner are dated 21.02.2002, and in terms of Section 129 (D) (3) as it stood at the relevant point of time, no order shall be made under Sub-section (1) or Sub-Section (2) of Section 129 (D) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision of the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the assessees are correct in contending that the appeals which have been filed in terms of the review orders dated 20.03.03, are barred by limitation. We, therefore, dismiss the above appeals on this ground alone without going into the question as to the correctness of the findings of the Commissioner on the aspect of time bar and lack of jurisdiction.
5. The cross objection No. C/CO/4/03 in appeal No. C/131/03 is hereby allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
4