Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce Raigad vs Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd on 13 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I Appeal No. E/522/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 102/IDG(31)COMMR(ADJ)/ 05-06 dated 20.03.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Raigad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, 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?
CCE Raigad Appellant Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd., Respondent Appearance:
Shri Hitesh Shah, Commr (AR) for appellant Shri. J.C. Patel, Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Balani, Advocate for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 13.01.2016 Date of Decision: 13.01.2016 ORDER NO Per: Ramesh Nair This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against order-in-original No. 102/IDG(31)COMMR(ADJ)/05-06 dated 20.03.2006 / 24/03/2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raigad wherein the learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs.16,98,52,336/-. However, no penalty was imposed therefore this appeal is for penalty by the Revenue. In the Revenues appeal one of the reliefs sought for is that the Commissioners demand is under Section 11AA whereas it should be under Section 11AB.
2. Shri Hitesh Shah, learned Commissioner (A.R.) appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri J.C. Patel, learned Advocate appeared for the respondent. Both sides submits that the partys appeal on the issue of demand of CENVAT credit has been allowed by this Tribunal vide Order No. A/38-39/12/EB/C-II dated 02.01.2012.
3. On perusal of the said order, we find that the demand involved from the very same impugned order has been set aside by this Tribunal, therefore the Revenues appeal is not survive. Hence, the Revenues appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
(Dictated in Court) (Raju) Member (Technical) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
1 2Appeal No. E/522/07