Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nature Care Solutions (I) Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/638/2007-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 71/2007-CE dated 30/04/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.] M/s. NATURE CARE SOLUTIONS (I) PVT LTD. NO.6,2ND CROSS, LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Rajesh Kumar T.A, CA HIRAGANGE & ASSOCIATES #1010, 1st floor(Above Corp. Bank) 26th Main, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560041. Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR For the Appellant For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 07/02/2018 Date of Decision: 07/02/2018 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20078 / 2018 Per : JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No.71/2007 dated 30.4.2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely hair oil, shampoo and fairness creams, which attracts the Central Excise duty. The appellant is availing the SSI exemption limit up to rupees one crore. It is the submission of the learned CA that for the earlier period, the goods were cleared which have returned as defective and the same were resold during the period under consideration. He submitted that the quantity which was returned back needs to be excluded from the prescribed limit of rupees one crore. The Department has refused the contention of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. With the above background, we heard Shri Rajesh Kumar. T.R., CA and Dr. Ezhilmathi, AR for the Revenue.
4. After hearing both parties, it appears that both the lower authorities have mentioned that the appellant has not produced any evidence pertaining to the return of the goods. We find that in the appellants products viz., hair oil and shampoo, there is no question of defect or repair. Further, in the instant case, the appellants have not given any proof for the return of the goods, then the claim made by the appellant cannot be sustained.
4.1 During the course of arguments, the learned CA accepts that the goods which were sent to Nepal will have to be included in the upper limit of rupees one crore.
4.2 In the instant case, when no proof was given regarding the return of the goods, which was claimed resold during the assessment year under consideration, then it will have to be included in the upper limit of rupees one crore.
5. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
(Order was pronounced and dictated in Open Court on 07/02/2018.) V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA PRESIDENT rv...
E/638/2007-DB 1