9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 773 - AT - Central ExciseServed From India Scheme - N/N. 34/2006 - Status Holder Incentive Scheme - N/N.33/2012 dated 09.07.2012 - clandestine removal - recovery - Held that - First of all I take objection to the language used by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) cannot pass judgment on the understanding, interpretation and appreciation by any Member of higher appellate forum. He should not have used the words the Member of the Tribunal has wrongly equated the debit entries and the words like Single Member has failed to appreciate . This Tribunal expresses unhappiness as use of such language by concerned learned Commissioner (Appeals) and expects that the said Commissioner (Appeals) shall be careful in future in use of language while analyzing the order passed by higher appellate forum. Further, I find that the ratio of the final order in the case of Universal Power Transformer Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 411 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , passed by this Tribunal is squarely applicable in the present case. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant shall be entitled for consequential benefit, if any, as per law.
Issues:
- Interpretation of notification No. 34/2006 and notification No. 33/2012 - Applicability of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Debit of Central Excise duty from SFIS scrips and SHI scrips - Validity of show cause notice issued to the appellant - Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the appeal Analysis: The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. NOI/EXCUSS/OOO/APP/306/2014-15 dated 29.12.2014. The appellant, a manufacturer of electrical panels, cleared goods valued at ?1,73,23,271 under the Served From India Scheme and the Status Holder Incentive Scheme. The Revenue claimed that duty was not paid on these goods and issued a show cause notice for a recovery of ?10,70,578 under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the exemption in the notification required debit of Central Excise duty from the scrips and relied on previous tribunal orders. The Original Authority confirmed a demand of ?2,94,524 and dropped a demand of ?7,76,054. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, criticizing a previous tribunal order's interpretation. The appellant contended that the previous tribunal order established that debiting a scrip equates to duty payment. The Tribunal objected to the language used by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order-in-Appeal, stating that judgment on the understanding of a Member was inappropriate. The Tribunal found that the previous tribunal order's ratio was applicable in the present case and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The appellant was entitled to consequential benefits as per the law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of careful language use by the Commissioner (Appeals) when analyzing orders from higher appellate forums. The decision highlighted the significance of the previous tribunal order's interpretation in determining the appellant's liability under the notification. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the correct interpretation of the notification, the application of Cenvat Credit Rules, the necessity of debiting Central Excise duty from scrips, the validity of the show cause notice, and the appropriateness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal's ruling emphasized the relevance of previous tribunal orders in establishing legal principles and ensuring consistent application of the law in similar cases.
|
