Skf Bearings India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. to hear these two appeals, appellants are required to pre-deposit rs. 3,13,082.15 being duty on inputs received under rule 57a and cleared as such under rule 57f(1)(ii) which was confirmed in order-in-originals no. 257/96 dt 30.4.96 and 258/96 dt 15.2.96 and upheld in the order-in-appeal no. 814/98 dt 21.10.98.2. heard shri t. gunasekaran, learned advocate for appellants and shri s. sankaravadivelu, ld. jdr.3. the short point for consideration in this matter as to what should be the rate of duty leviable on inputs which were received under rule 57a and after credit being taken thereon, they are now sought to be removed as such under rule 57f(1)(ii). the duty demand has been confirmed on the basis that rate of duty etc. would be as prevalent on the date of removal of the said goods whereas the appellants contention is that rate of duty should be as prevalent on the date on which the credit was taken when the inputs were received. learned advocate submits that the issue is no longer res integra as it is already covered by the following decisions:castrol india ltd v. cce 4. learned advocate submits that in all the decisions out of which those at (a) & (b) above are by the south regional bench of the tribunal, it has been held that rate of duty would be on the basis of date on which credit was taken etc. the net effect of these decisions is that whatever the quantum of credit taken, same quantum of duty would be reversed when the inputs as such are removed under rule 57f(1)(ii).6. we have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides and records of the case. we find that as the matter is already covered one and lies in a short compass, therefore after granting waiver and stay of recovery, we proceed to consider the main appeals themselves. we find that the matter has already been decided in the three judgments noted supra. the main ground on which the learned commissioner (appeals) had upheld the two order-in-originals noted supra was that there appeared no uniformity in the decisions given by various benches of the tribunal on this issue and therefore he has held that rate of duty would be as prevalent on the date of clearance. we find that the above findings of the learned commissioner (appeals) does not hold good in view of the two decisions of this very tribunal in the case of cce v. american auto service and boving fouress ltd. in the case of boving fouress ltd., it has been clearly held that in terms of rule 57f(1)(ii), higher burden of duty is not to be placed when the inputs are cleared as such. this decision follows the decision of this very tribunal in the case of american auto service (supra). we also find that same decision of american auto service has been again relied upon in the case of castrol india ltd (supra) 7. we, therefore, clearly find that the learned appellate authority's contention that there are conflicting decisions on this issue is not governed by these three decisions which have been passed over a period of time. we, therefore, apply the ratio thereof to the facts of this case and set aside the order-in-appeal impugned and allow the appeals, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Judgment:
1. To hear these two appeals, appellants are required to pre-deposit Rs. 3,13,082.15 being duty on inputs received under Rule 57A and cleared as such under Rule 57F(1)(ii) which was confirmed in Order-in-Originals No. 257/96 dt 30.4.96 and 258/96 dt 15.2.96 and upheld in the Order-in-Appeal No. 814/98 dt 21.10.98.

2. Heard Shri T. Gunasekaran, Learned Advocate for appellants and Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, Ld. JDR.3. The short point for consideration in this matter as to what should be the rate of duty leviable on inputs which were received under Rule 57A and after credit being taken thereon, they are now sought to be removed as such under Rule 57F(1)(ii). The duty demand has been confirmed on the basis that rate of duty etc. would be as prevalent on the date of removal of the said goods whereas the appellants contention is that rate of duty should be as prevalent on the date on which the credit was taken when the inputs were received. Learned advocate submits that the issue is no longer res Integra as it is already covered by the following decisions:Castrol India Ltd v. CCE 4. Learned Advocate submits that in all the decisions out of which those at (a) & (b) above are by the South Regional Bench of the Tribunal, it has been held that rate of duty would be on the basis of date on which credit was taken etc. The net effect of these decisions is that whatever the quantum of credit taken, same quantum of duty would be reversed when the inputs as such are removed under Rule 57F(1)(ii).

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of both sides and records of the case. We find that as the matter is already covered one and lies in a short compass, therefore after granting waiver and stay of recovery, we proceed to consider the main appeals themselves. We find that the matter has already been decided in the three judgments noted supra. The main ground on which the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the two Order-in-Originals noted supra was that there appeared no uniformity in the decisions given by various Benches of the Tribunal on this issue and therefore he has held that rate of duty would be as prevalent on the date of clearance. We find that the above findings of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not hold good in view of the two decisions of this very Tribunal in the case of CCE v. American Auto Service and Boving Fouress Ltd. In the case of Boving Fouress Ltd., it has been clearly held that in terms of Rule 57F(1)(ii), higher burden of duty is not to be placed when the inputs are cleared as such. This decision follows the decision of this very Tribunal in the case of American Auto Service (supra). We also find that same decision of American Auto Service has been again relied upon in the case of Castrol India Ltd (supra) 7. We, therefore, clearly find that the Learned appellate authority's contention that there are conflicting decisions on this issue is not governed by these three decisions which have been passed over a period of time. We, therefore, apply the ratio thereof to the facts of this case and set aside the Order-in-Appeal impugned and allow the appeals, with consequential relief, if any, as per law.