Central Excise Appeal (Lodging) No. 24 of 2014. Case: Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Central Excise Appeal (Lodging) No. 24 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Prakash Shah with Prasad Paranjape i/by PDS Legal and For Respondent: Shri V.H. Kantharia with Ms. Anamika Malhotra |
| Judges | Mohit S. Shah, C.J. and M.S. Sanklecha, J. |
| Issue | Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35F |
| Citation | 2015 (323) ELT 545 (Bom.) |
| Judgement Date | February 25, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
At the request of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 17 December 2013 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). By the impugned order dated 17 December, 2013 the petitioner was directed to pre-deposit 25% of the duty amount quantified at Rs. 5,36,83,121/- under the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944) for the purposes of entertaining the appeal on merits.
-
Although the appellant has raised several questions in its appeal for our consideration. According to us question (a) brings out the basic controversy and the same reads as under:-
(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the appellant to pre-deposit the 25% of the duty demanded and confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 24 June 2013 passed by the respondent?
-
The appellant is manufacturing anchor rings and load spreading plates which are supplied to company setting up windmills. The goods were cleared without payment of excise duty on the assumption that the same were exempted by Notification No. 6/2006, dated 17 March 2006 or under Notification No. 12/12, dated 17 March, 2012. The relevant entry in question under which the exemption was claimed, read as under:
"Wing operated electricity generator (WOEG) its components and parts including rotor and wind turbine controller".
-
The appellant''s case is that anchor rings and load spreading plates are parts of wind operated electricity generator. Both the items are embedded in the foundation and provide the base and stability to the tower of wind operated electricity generator and therefore, they are parts of wind operated electricity generator. On the other hand revenue''s case is that these items are not part of wind operated electricity generator and therefore, not covered by the above entry in the exemption Notification. Thus, they are chargeable to excise duty.
-
Mr. Prakash Shah, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that in the present case the Tribunal ought to have granted complete waiver of pre-deposit of duty for the purposes of hearing the appellant on merits. This is so as, according to him, the issues stand covered in the appellant''s favour by the decisions of the Tribunal in Pushpam Forging v. CCE - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 334, Gemini Instrated Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2013 TIOL 738 = 2014 (300) E.L.T. 446 (Tri. -...
To continue reading
Request your trial