Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jindal Drugs Ltd vs Cce Belapur on 5 January, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/86389/13 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Original No. Belapur/77/Tal/R-I/Commr/KA/2012-13 dated 25.02.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri P.S. Pruthi, 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 :
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?
Jindal Drugs Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Belapur
Respondent
Appearance Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for appellant Shri K.M. Mondal, Spl. Counsel For Respondent CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 07.08.2014 Date of Decision : 05.01.2015 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant M/s Jindal Drugs has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein demand of Rs.23,02,53,752/- has been confirmed on account of wrong availment of credit and dis-allowing the rebate of Rs.13,22,30,368/- for the period June 2008 to July 2012 along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs.23,02,53,752/-.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is in the business of export of Coco Butter and Coco Powder. The appellants factory at Jammu manufactures Coco Butter and Coco Powder. The appellants another unit located at Taloja received these products. In their Taloja unit, the appellant affixed two labels on two sides of packages of the said goods received from their Jammu factory and cleared the same for export on payment of duty and claiming rebate of duty paid on the exported goods. The appellant was also availing CENVAT Credit of duty paid on these goods at the time of clearance from Jammu. The appellant is also importing Coco Butter and Coco Powder from China and Malaysia and receives the same in their factory at Taloja. The contention of the appellant was that after receiving the import goods, they remove the old carton and repacked in a new carton by putting label thereon. The factory of the appellant was visited and found that the appellant is only putting labels on the goods procured from Jammu as well as on the imported goods. As the labels were already fixed on the boxes therefore additional labels affixed by the appellant does not amounts to manufacture as affixing of additional label does not enhance the marketability (as the goods are already marketable). Therefore, impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant to deny the CENVAT Credit taken by them and consequently denying the rebate claim sanctioned to the appellant along with interest and penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand as stated in para 1 here-in-above. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us.
3. Heard both sides.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the show-cause notice admits that the appellant was doing the activity of