w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Hi-Tech Power & Steel Ltd V/S CCE, Raipur


Company & Directors' Information:- HI-TECH POWER AND STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27104CT2000PLC014148

Company & Directors' Information:- RAIPUR POWER AND STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PLC222971

Company & Directors' Information:- HI TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33111PB1985PTC006494

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

Company & Directors' Information:- HI TECH V PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U30007NL1998PTC005483

Company & Directors' Information:- TECH POWER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29198MH1998PTC112855

Company & Directors' Information:- B P POWER TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2015PTC289043

Company & Directors' Information:- N B POWER-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40101MH2011PTC213689

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL TECH PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28112KL1979PTC003100

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. HI-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036463

Company & Directors' Information:- HI-TECH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21000TG2012PTC079870

Company & Directors' Information:- H & M HI-TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2012PTC238131

Company & Directors' Information:- T & P POWER TECH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45207DL2008PTC181566

    Excise Appeal Nos. 4055 of 2010 (Arising out of order in appeal No. 249/RPR-I/2010 dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur) and Final order No. 52917/2017

    Decided On, 13 April 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
    By, (PRESIDENT) AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: V. PADMANABHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Vijayan Khongal, C.A And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, AR



Judgment Text


1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the order in appeal No. 249/RPR-I/2010 dated 15.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raipur.

2. Heard Sh. Vijayan Khongal, ld. C.A. for the appellant and Shri R. K. Mishra, ld. AR for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration (April 2005 to October 2005), the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron but side by side, the appellant was also engaged in the manufacture of fly ash bricks which were exempted from the excise duty if the contents of the fly ash is more than 25%. By Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 158 of the Notification No. 06/2002 ) the department has demanded excise duty on the fly ash bricks by stating that the appellant has not followed the procedure prescribed under condition of 36 of the said notification (supra). In the said condition, it is mentioned that the jurisdictional Commissioner will notify the manner in which information will be submitted by the appellant. It is the submission of the ld. Counsel that for the purpose, no prescribed form was made available by the jurisdictional Commissioner. First time, the required form was published being Notice No. 01/2009 dated 27.01.2009 i.e. much after the disputed period. Hence, there was no occasion to supply the information during the period under dispute.

4. From the record, it appears that the appellant was using more than 40% of fly ash in manufacture of bricks and entire record was maintained in ER-4 which was also produced before the lower authorities.

5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of record, it appears that for fulfilling the Condition No. 36 (supra), the jurisdictional Commissioner has not made any form published in form or manner where information was required. When it is so, then we are of the view that the information supplied by the appellant in ER-4 was sufficient pertaining to fly ash brick which

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

is exempted from the duty as stated above. When it is so, then we find no reason to sustain the impugned order and the same is hereby set-aside. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
O R