COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Vs. KEI INDUSTRIES LIMITED
LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-190
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 08,2017

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Appellant
VERSUS
Kei Industries Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the substantial issue which has been raised in the instant appeal has been examined earlier by the ld.CESTAT in Appeal No.52166- 52167/2016 in the case of M/s.Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur and para-9 of the order of ld.Tribunal being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:- "We find that goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Tariff. Under Central Excise Tariff there is no Heading 98.01 and which exists in Customs Tariff only. Since the goods manufacturede in India can not be classified under 98.01 of the Central Excise Tariff, denial of the exemption on the ground of non-fulfullment of condition of Project Import Regulation is not sustainable particularly when condition No. 86 of the Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 is fulfilled by them. Similar submissions were made by Revenue for denying the benefit of Notification 6/2006, dated 1-3-2006 on the ground of non-fulfillment of conditions of the Project Import Regulation in case of Sarita Steels and Industries Ltd., 2011 264 ELT 313and Tribunal in that case allowed the exemption under Notification 6/2006, dated 1-3-2006 to the assessee. Reference can be made to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Om Metals SMPL JV Unit 2 vs. CCE, Jaipur as reported in [2013 (298) ELT 79 (TriDel)]. We, therefore, hold that appellants are eligible for exemption under Notification 6/2006, dated 1-3- 2006 and accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal."
(2.) It is informed to this court that the subject issue is pending before the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal No.D.9308 of 2014 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur-I against the final order of CESTAT No.57347/2013- EX(PB) dt.13.08.2013 Om Metals SPML JV Unit 2. Vs. Commissioner, 2013 298 ELT 79.
(3.) Mr.P.K.Kasliwal, Advocate submits that the present appeal is not maintainable and the department can certainly file appeal before the Apex Court u/Sec.35-L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.