Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T. Alwar vs M/S. Balkrishna Industries Ltd on 10 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. E/52812/2015-Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 185(SLM?CE/JPR/2015 Dated: 09.04.2015 passed by Commissioner (A) Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. & S.T. Alwar ...Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. M.R. Sharma (DR) for the Appellant Ms. Sukriti Das (Advocate) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision.10.08.2016 Final Order No. __53624_/2016 Per S K Mohanty:
Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.
2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period April 2012 to October 2012, the appellant had filed the applications under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, claiming rebate of Central Excise duty of Rs. 29,05,883/- paid on exportation of goods. The rebate claim of the appellant was sanctioned vide the adjudication order dated 14.03.2013. However, out of the rebate sanctioned amount of Rs. 26,78,245/-, and amount of Rs. 18,71,531/- was adjusted/ appropriated against the previous demand confirmed on the Respondent and the balance amount of Rs. 8,06,714/- was paid through cheque. Appeal against the adjudication order dated 14.03.2013 was decided by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the Respondent herein vide the impugned order dated 09.04.2015, holding inter alia, as follows:-
I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made by the appellants in their appeal memos and during personal hearing. I observed that Rs. 9,02,773/- out of OIO No. 1050/2012-13 dated 14.03.2013 have been appropriated against the confirmed demand of Rs. 4,02,240/- under OIO No. 2/2012 dated 28.06.2012 and Rs. 5,00,533/- under OIO No. 156/2012 CE dated 11.10.2012. The OIO No. 2/2012 dated 28.06.2012 further upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA No. 96(VC)CE/2013 dated 26.08.2013. the appellant filed appeal before the Honble CESTAT who vide final order no. A/50582/2015-SM(Br.) dated 24.02.2015 set aside the demand of OIO No. 2/2012 dated 28.06.2012. Further, this office has granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to impugned order in original No. 156/2012 dated 11.10.2012, pending disposal of substantive appeal. Since, the subject demand has been dropped by the Honble CESTAT against OIO No. 2/2012 dated 28.06.2012 and recovery stayed in case of order in original No. 156/2012 dated 11.10.2012, therefore, appropriation is not sustainable in both the cases.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find there is no outstanding liability towards the Government revenue exist for recovery from the Respondent, in view of the order dated 24.02.2015 of the Tribunal and Stay order of Commissioner (Appeals), staying recovery of the adjudged dues from the rebate sanctioned amount, I am of the view that the adjudication order dated 14.03.2013 in appropriating the amount of Rs. 18,71,531/- is not proper and justified.
4. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/52182/2015-Ex[SM]