9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is directed to pay interest on the same. The duty of ₹ 17,49,185/- and ₹ 89,698/- already paid to be taken into consideration for refund of excess duty paid after taking into consideration the interest that is liable to be paid. The remaining part of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2008 is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee. - E/MISC/51478 & 51479/2015 APPEAL Nos.E/1128 & E/1129/2009-EX[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO-70356-70357/2017 - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate for Appellants Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Joint Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Above stated two appeals are directed against impugned Order-in-Original No. 61-75/COMMR/M-II/2008 dated 31/12/2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Meerut-II, therefore they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Chadha Brass Ltd. (CBL) were engaged in the manufacture of Untrimmed and Trimmed Copper and Brass Sheets and Circles. Through a show cause notice dated 01.08.1996 issued t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey did not meet the requirement of criteria of marketability and therefore, the goods did not qualify to be called manufactured goods in terms of Section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore the said goods did not attract Central Excise Duty. In respect of goods captively consumed i.e. untrimmed sheets and circles of copper and brass they claimed the benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 and further contended that Revenue did not discharge its obligation to prove that the said notification is not applicable to them. They further contended that the rate of duty taken into consideration in the show cause notices was tariff rate of 15% where as through Notification No. 134/94-CE dated 27.10.94 the effective rate of duty was ₹ 2000/- per MT and therefore the show cause notice was bad in law. They also claimed benefit of small scale Notification under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.02.1993. The original authority found that in all the above stated six show cause notices put together quantity of trimmed sheets of copper cleared without payment of duty was 11289.3 Kg and that of brass was 418576.15kg. On that basis the original authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty of excise. He has further held that there was no controversy in the said appeal with regard the payment of duty under exemption of Notification No.67/95 dated 16.03.1995 in respect of untrimmed sheets and circles of copper and brass. He has further held that the issue to be decided in the appeal was duty on untrimmed sheets and circles of brass and copper going into the manufacture of Handicrafts and Utensils and the appropriate rate of duty of excise on such untrimmed sheets and circles. He has held that for availing the benefit under Notification No. 134/94-CE dated 27.10.94 and 8/96-CE dated 23.07.96 (sl.no.74.5) duty payable on such untrimmed sheets and circles of copper and brass was ₹ 2000/- per MT up to 22.07.96 and ₹ 2500/-per MT from 23.07.1996 to December 96 and only condition in the said notifications was that no modvate credit under Rules 57-A, 57-Q should have been taken and further held that since the final product that is trimmed sheets and circles of copper and brass going into manufacture of Utensils and Handicrafts were attracting nil rate of duty the question of availment of modvate credit on inputs going into manufacture of such goods which ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .06.2005. 31.01.2006, 30.10.2006, 20.04.2007, 23.10.2007, 18.03.2008 demanding respectively Central Excise Duty of ₹ 29,39,145/-, 5,99,505/-, 10,07,253/-, 18,16,173/-, 30,90,939/-, 22,97,959/-, 18,20,416/-, 16,50,250/-. Further, in show cause notices dated 23.10.2007 and 18.03.2008 there was a proposal to imposed personal penalty on Shri I.S. Chadha under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. Learned Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II has clubbed above stated 09 show cause notices issued from 03.07.2003 to 18.03.2008 and further clubbed the earlier show cause notices dated 01.08.1996 to 22.04.1997 which was remanded by this Tribunal and passed a common order through Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2008 in respect of admissibility of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993. The original authority has held that since CBL had not claimed the said benefit at the beginning the question of granting them such benefir under such Notification at this stage is not in the interest of justice and denied the benefit of Notification No.1/93-CE to CBL. Further, in respect of Notification No. 134/94-CE dated 27.10.94 and 8/96-CE dated 23.07.96 the original authority has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready dropped in the earlier proceeding and, secondly was legally obliged to pass orders within the parameters of the directions of the Tribunal directed in the remand order and that the action of the original authority in confirming the duty demand in respect of remanded matter, when original and appellate authority has not confirmed the demand, such order is bad in law. 6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant. He has submitted that the second set of 09 show cause notices were issued without authority of law. Since, the original authority through its order-in-Original dated 27.04.2000 had already decided the admissibility of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 in respect of untrimmed sheets and circles of copper and brass which were used in the manufacture of trimmed products on which duty was being paid and that when the matter was already settled and the department has not contested on such findings to issue show cause notice denying the benefit of Notification No.67/95 through such 09 show cause notices dated 03.07.2003 to 17.03.2008 was without authority of law and further that show cause notice dated 03.07.2003 was issued invoking the extended period even when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subjected to Central Excise Duty of ₹ 2000/-per MT was 14111.625 kg in all the show cause notices put together. The said quantity of 14111.625 kg untrimmed copper sheets would have attracting duty @ ₹ 2000/- per MT and such duty works out to around ₹ 30,000/- where as they have debited duty of ₹ 17,49,185/-. 7. Heard the learned A.R., who has supported the impugned order-in-Original. 8. Having considered the rival contentions and after having gone through the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Nigam Sugar Factory (supra) and in the case of M/s Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog (supra) we find that the show cause notices dated 03.07.2003 onwords up to 17.03.2008 are not tenable in law because the Department has referred the issue of admissibility of Notification No. 67/95-CE by CBL when the original authority had decided the matter in favour of CBL through the Order in Original dated 27.04.2000 which was not challenged by revenue. In respect of 06 show cause notices which were remanded back by this Tribunal to the Original authority and were adjudicated by Commissioner, we find that during the remand order this Tribunal did not have the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
