M/s Paradise Steels Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & CGST, Jaipur
Central Excise
2018 (9) TMI 1480 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 10-7-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51414 of 2018 – A/52715/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical)
None (written submission) – for the appellant.
Ms Tamanna Alam, Authorized Representative (DR) – for the Respondent.
ORDER
Per. C.L. Mahar :-
The brief fact of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of S.S. Patta Patti falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant have been working under the special procedure for compound levy scheme for stainless steel Patta Patti prescribed vide Notification No. 17/2007-CE dated 01/03/2007 issued under Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is a matter of record that as per the conditions of the above-mentioned Notification No. 17/2007-CE dated 01/03/2007, th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2007-CE does not have any provision with regard to reduction in the amount of the duty to be deposited even if a particular machine become inoperative during the period of any month. The assessee has gone in appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who has taken up all the three refund claims details given as below :-
SR. NO.
Appeal No.
OIO No. and date
Amount of refund involved (Rs.)
1.
APPL/JPR-I/CE/JD/509/X/ 2016
204/2016-R dated 04/07/2016
37,419/-
2.
APPL/JPR-I/CE/JD/634/XI/ 2016
267/2016-R dated 26/10/2016
18,064/-
3.
APPL/JPR-I/CE/JD/579/XI/ 2016
222/2016-R dated 12/09/2016
18,064/-
The learned Commissioner vide his order dated 09/01/2018 rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that they have not opted for first time under compounded levy scheme as such they are required to pay full duty during the said month and they are not entitled for refund for the machine remaining inoperative for a part of month or days. It was concluded that the faci
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
machine remains inoperative. It has further been elaborated by the learned Advocate that they have given due intimation of machines remaining inoperative on 2nd May, 2016 and same was duly accepted and approved by the Range Superintendent. It cannot be the case of the Department that when the machine is not manufacturing any goods can be put for charging central excise duty.
3. We have also heard the learned AR who has reiterated the findings of the order-in-original of the Adjudicating Authority.
4. We have heard both sides and perused the record of the appeal.
5. It is a matter of record that the appellant have deposited duty of central excise under the compounded levy scheme in the S.S. Patta Patti manufacture in advance for the month of May 2016. After a few days one of the machine became inoperative and due information was given to the concerned Range Superintendent who has acknowledged and allowed that one machine out of the 9 machines declared by the appellant can remain inop
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aj.) is reproduced here below :-
“23. It goes without saying that, if in any particular month, no machine is operated and no production had taken place, there cannot be any levy of excise Duty. The manufacture of goods is condition precedent for charging of excise duty without which no levy can be made. Therefore, the rule cannot be made to go beyond the scope of charging provision. On the undisputed premises that no production had taken place from the cold rolling machine which has been removed on 29th May, 1998. In other words, no production has been taken place in respect of cold rolling machine which ceased to operate before the first July, 1996, no review could have been allowed in respect of estimated production in that machine. This is the simple logic which prevailed within the Tribunal and in our opinion rightly. No contrary view can be taken from the reading of the Rules also. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was valid.
24. Moreo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =