Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Sundaram Industries on 22 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. E/16 & 17/03 and E/CR/99/03
& E/CR/100/03
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.171 & 172/2002 (MDU) (ADK) dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, 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 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? :
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Madurai
Appellant/s
Versus
Sundaram Industries
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri R.P.Meena, SDR Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 22.5.2009 Date of decision : 22.5.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The respondents herein, who are manufacturers of various rubber products, were also undertaking job work under Notification No.214/86 and also doing job work of re-rubberisation of used old rollers. The department was of the view that as re-rubberisation of used rollers does not amount to manufacture, captive consumption exemption for the quantity of compounded rubber used for re-rubberisation of rollers was not available and duty had to be paid on compounded rubber before its clearance for captive use and reversal of credit taken on the inputs did not satisfy the requirement of the statute. On that basis, show-cause notices were issued proposing recovery of duty during the relevant period which were adjudicated by the Asst.Commissioner confirming the demand and imposing penalty on the respondents. Appeals were preferred by the assessees to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the demands and penalty in the light of the apex courts decision in Lathia Industrial Supplies Vs CCE, 1993 (29) ELT 751 (SC). Hence these appeals by the Revenue.
2. We have heard both sides. We find that in the case of the same assessee, the Tribunal has already decided, as seen from the order reported as 2005 (179) ELT 461, that the demand of 8% of the price of re-rubberised roller under Rules 57CC/57AD of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not sustainable. The decision of the Tribunal is in the context of subsequent period to that covered in the present appeals. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeals of the Revenue. The cross-objections are in the nature of reply to the Revenues appeals and hence are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2