Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Apar Industries Ltd on 12 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL Nos. E/2260 & 2261/03-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PKA/MUMBAI-II/16,17/2003 dated 29.4.2003 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, 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?
====================================================== Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Appellant Vs. Apar Industries Ltd. Respondent Appearance: Shri Ahibaran, Additional Commissioner (AR), for appellant None for respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 12.6.2013 Date of Decision: 12.6.2013 ORDER NO Per: S.S. Kang
The appeals are being taken up in pursuance to the remand order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the Honble Bombay High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.29 of 2011.
2. Common issue is involved, therefore the appeals are being taken up together.
3. The Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturing goods and clearing on payment of duty. The respondents are also undertaking job work in respect of the same goods and the same were cleared by availing the benefit of Notification 214/86-CE. The respondents are availing credit in respect of the common inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as in respect of job-work goods. The respondents are reversing the credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of job-work goods. Show cause notices were issued demanding duty in view of the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that the respondents are not maintaining separate records in respect of the common inputs hence liable to pay 8% of the price of exempted goods, i.e. in respect of the goods manufactured on job work basis.
4. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The Revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals.
5. The Revenue is relying upon the provisions of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules on the ground that as the respondents are not maintaining separate records in respect of the common inputs, therefore are liable to pay 8% of the price of the goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification 214/86-CE.
6. We find that the respondents were reversing proportionate credit availed in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared under Notification 214/86-CE at nil rate of duty. The provisions of Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules are retrospectively amended by the Finance Act, 2010 to the effect that proportionate reversal of credit in respect of inputs gone into manufacture of goods cleared at nil rate of duty is sufficient. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeals are dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) (P.K. Jain) Member (Technical) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 2