Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCGST, Belapur
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 731 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 1-11-2018
APPEAL NO: E/86260-86261/2018 – A/87820-87821/2018
Central Excise
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Appellant: Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Shilpa Balani, Advocate
Respondent: Shri Deepak S. Chavon, Superintendent (AR)
ORDER
The instant appeal has been filed from the order-in-appeal no. MKK/302-303/RGD APP/2017 dated 07.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Raigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of medicine and vide remission order dated 29.09.2015, they were granted permission for remission of Central Excise duty on the finished goods unfit for consumption with the condition to reverse applicable Cenvat credit taken on the input and input services used in the manufacture of the finished goods with interest ther
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ision of this Tribunal in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. CCE & Custom, Ahmadabad; reported in 2003(154) ELT 543(Tri-Mumbai) but the same was overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore; 2007(208) ELT 336(Tri-LB). According to the Appellant, the Circular thus becomes non-est and it cannot have a binding value. Another ground raised by the Appellant is that the newly inserted Rule 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules is effective from 07.09.2007 and the explanation 2 inserted in this rule from 08.01.2014 provides that recovery under Rule 14 is applicable only when the amount is not paid with the time stipulated therein and since they had already reversed the Cenvat amount immediately, therefore there is no question of payment of any interest.
3. The Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 07.12.2017 rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
had been cited in the said circular since the basis for the said circular, had been expressly overruled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) and the said decision of the Larger Bench was further approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of CCE, Chennai-III vs. Joy Foam Pvt. Ltd. 2015(322) ELT 209 (Mad). But the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without giving any finding on the said contention, rejected the appeals filed by the appellant on a totally new ground that the Appellant had not challenged the order of remission by which the condition for payment of interest had been imposed. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order and prayed for rejection of the appeals filed by the appellant.
5. It is settled legal principle that no authority is allowed to travel beyond the show cause notice. In the present matter, the show cause notice proposes
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =