Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Paragon Polymer Products Pvt Ltd vs Hyderabad-I on 4 July, 2018
Appeal No. E/24/2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Division Bench
Court - I
Appeal No. E/24/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2009 (H-I) CE dated
25.09.2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and
Service Tax (Appeal-I & III), Hyderabad)
Paragon Polymer Products Private
Limited .....Appellant(s)
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise,
Hyderabad - I .....Respondent(s)
Appearance Shri Radha Arun, Consultant for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Hon'ble Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 04/07/2018 Date of Decision: 04/07/2018 FINAL ORDER No. A/30700/2018 [Order per: M.V. Ravindran] This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2009 (H-I) CE dated 25.09.2009.1
Appeal No. E/24/2010
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue mainly pertains to eligibility to avail SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 by excluding the value of exemption goods cleared under Notification No. 05/2006-CE; and also regarding duty on waste and scrape generated during the manufacturing of foot wears.
4. Both sides agree that the main issue is no more res integra. In the appellant's own case, this Bench has rejected the contentions of appellant that for calculating the aggregate value of clearances under Notification No. 08/2003, the value of exempted goods under Notification 05/2006 should not be included. The said order and judgement of the Tribunal is upheld by the Higher Judicial Forums. Hence, the issue on merits is decided against the appellant.
5. The only claim of the Learned Consultant before the Bench is that in the earlier matters of the same appellant on the same issue, Tribunal has been setting aside the penalties imposed by the lower authorities and prays for the same and submits that the First Appellate Authority has remanded the demand relating to waste and scrap for which they will co-operate with the Adjudicating Authority, hence that finding need not be disturbed.
2
Appeal No. E/24/2010
6. The issue on merits is decided in favour of the Revenue, we find that the demand of the duty and the interest from the appellant in this case needs to be upheld and we do so. It has been correctly pointed out by the Learned Consultant that on the same issue earlier orders of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case are setting aside the penalties are imposed. We do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken. Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Lower Authorities in this case is set aside. As regards the demand of duty on the waste and scrap, we do find that the First Appellate Authority has remanded the matter for coming to a conclusion considering various submissions of the assessee. In our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a correct conclusion reached by the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order but set aside that portion of the order which confirms the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.
7. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated herein above.
(Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing) P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO M.V. RAVINDRAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Lakshmi....
3