C.C.E.-B.O.L. Vs. NILKAMAL PLASTIC LTD.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Nilkamal Plastic Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
D.M. Misra, Member (J) -
(1.)THESE Appeals are filed by the Revenue against Order -in -Appeal No. 74 -75/BOL/2009 dated 30.12.2009.
(2.)BRIEFLY Stated the facts of the case are that the respondent assessee are manufacturer of excisable goods falling under chapter 94 and 39 of CETA. They have availed CENVAT Credit on various inputs viz. Polypropylene Granules, HDPE, LLDPE, Master -Batch, Polypropylene -Copolymer, Wrap Film, PPCP, PPHP and FP etc. and capital goods viz Injection moulding machine, OKS Spray, Grinder Blade, Sticker, Spare parts, Teepol Solution, Poly Chain, Timing Belt etc.. The appellant had exported the said inputs and capital goods to Bangladesh under bond following procedure laid down for exports. A show cause cum demand notice was issued alleging violation of Rule 3(4) and/or 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 inasmuch as while clearing the inputs/capital goods, the appellants had failed to reverse the credit availed on such inputs/capital goods. On adjudication the demand was confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal challenging denial of CENVAT Credit whereas the Revenue also filed an Appeal for non -imposition of penalty against respondent assessee. The ld. Commissioner by common order disposed both the appeals, whereby he has rejected the Revenues appeal and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee respondent. Hence the Revenue is in Appeal.
At the outset the ld. Consultant for the respondent has submitted that the issue is no more res integra being decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Raigad vs. Micro Inks Ltd. : 2011 (260) ELT 360 (Bom.), by the Tribunal in the case of Essel Propack Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane, 2014 (314) ELT 584(Tri. -Mumbai), Glass and Ceramic Decorators vs. CCE, Mumbai -I : 2014 (305) ELT 133 (Tri. -Mumbai), Videocon International Ltd. vs. CCE, Vadodara -II, 2009 (235) ELT 135 (Tri. -Ahmd.).
(3.)THE ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the grounds of appeal. He could not place any contrary judgement to the ones cited by the ld. Advocate for the respondent.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.