Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 3 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/338/09 - Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AH/7/RGD/2009 dated 22.01.09 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 :
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?
M/s Laxmi Organic Industries Ltd.
:
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Respondents
Appearance Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate for Appellants Shri B.P. Pereira, JDR for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 03.08.10 Date of Decision : 03.08.10 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal This appeal is filed by the appellant against the denial of input credit taken on inputs cleared to their job workers and after processing were received back for further process.
2. The facts of this case are that the appellants are availing the credit on inputs viz. Denatonium Saccharide, Benzene and Crotonaldehyde claiming as their inputs. They send these inputs to the sugar factories / distilleries under job-work challans by following the procedure under Rule 4(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After processing, the appellants receive the denaturant spirit from the sugar factories which are further used in the process for manufacturing of further products of the appellants. A show-cause notice was issued for denial of input credit taken by the appellant on the inputs referred herein above removed by the appellant as such, demand was confirmed with interest and penalty by both the authorities below. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is before me.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Shri Mayur Shroff, learned Advocate submits that in the appellants own case for the earlier period this Tribunal vide order No. A/1045/C-IV/SMB/2007 dated 04.07.2007 has held that the appellant is entitled for input credit on the above inputs and the Honble High Court of Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No. 237 of 2007 dated 23.07.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the department and confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal. Hence the issue is already settled in favour of the appellants, the appeal may be allowed.
5. On the other hand the learned DR submitted that the facts are not identical and the said decision is not applicable to this case.
6. On careful examination of the facts and records and submissions made by both the sides, I have come to the conclusion that the facts are identical to the appellants own case for the earlier period, in which this Tribunals order (supra) has held that the appellant is entitled for input credit on the disputed inputs and the same has been confirmed by the Honble High Court of Bombay. Accordingly, I find that the issue is no more res integra and the appellants are entitled for the input credit on the inputs namely Denatonium Saccharide, Benzene and Crotonaldehyde. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(Pronounced in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3