Partly allowed

Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Rakhoh Enterprises) v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate

Bombay HC25 Feb 2014CEXA/64/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an appeal against an order directing a 25% pre-deposit of duty under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, held it was not fit to interfere but granted extended time for the deposit. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a hearing within three months of deposit.

What did the court decide?

Extended time to deposit 10% immediately and remaining 15% within six weeks of today; Tribunal to decide the appeal within three months of 25% pre-deposit.

Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Rakhoh… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

ASN

CEXA-24-14.sxw

1/5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL LODGING NO.24 OF 2014

¶6

Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Rakhoh Enterprises). ..Appellant. vs.

¶7

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I.

¶8

..Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Prakash Shah along with Mr. Prasad Paranjape i/by PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. V. H.Kantharia along with Ms. Anamika Malhotra for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND M.S. SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2014

¶11

PC:

¶12

At the request of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶13

This appeal is directed against the order dated 17 December 2013 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). 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.

¶14

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:-

ASN

2/5

CEXA-24-14.sxw

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?

¶19

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:

¶20

“Wing operated electricity generator (WOEG) its components and parts including rotor and wind turbine controller”.

¶21

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.

¶22

ASN

¶23

3/5 CEXA-24-14.sxw

¶24

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 vs. CCE 193 ELT 333, Gemini Instrated Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2013 TIDL 738 and Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs 108 ELT 448. According to him the Tribunal has extended the benefit of similar/identical Notification to certain items like flanges, windmill doors as parts of wind operated electricity generator.

¶25

Mr. Kantharia, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is the case of the revenue that what is exempted is not windmill system in its entirety but only wind operated electricity generator and its components and parts including rotor and wind turbine controller. It is the case of the revenue that goods manufactured and cleared by the assessee are the parts being used in foundation base of Tower of windmill system and not being used as parts of Wind Operated Electricity Generator, Rotor and Wind Turbine Controller. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to exemption under the said notifications.

¶26

The Tribunal has given a finding that none of the decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant are strictly on the point involved in the present case. The Tribunal enquired about the financial hardship of the appellant and the learned Counsel for the appellant stated that there was no financial hardship though the appellant is a

ASN

4/5

CEXA-24-14.sxw

proprietorship firm. The Tribunal then passed the impugned order observing that the applicant has not been able to make out a case for total waiver of duty and directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the duty amount i.e. Rs.5,36,83,121/- and granted a stay on the payment of balance amount duty and penalty. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶31

Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent-revenue, we are of the view that since none of the decisions relied upon by the appellant is directly on the items which are the subject matter of the present appeal, the same would have to be examined at the final hearing of the appeal. The notification granting benefit has also undergone changes from time to time. Moreover, prima facie the exemption is to one of the items of windmill system i.e. wind operated electricity generator and its components and parts and not an entire windmill system. It must be borne in mind that the issues are being considered in the context of the impugned order directing a pre-deposit of 25% to hear the appeal on merits.

¶32

In view of the above, we are of the view that this is not a fit case for interference with the impugned order of the Tribunal. However, having considered all the relevant aspects while dismissing the appeal against the impugned order of pre-deposit we extend the time to pre-deposit. We grant the appellant 6 weeks time from today to deposit 10% of the duty amount and further 6-weeks time to deposit remaining 15% of the duty amount. Having regard to the nature of the

ASN

CEXA-24-14.sxw

5/5

controversy and the fact that it is of recurring nature we are of the view that this is a fit case for expeditious hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal shall make an endeavor to hear and decide the appeal within 3-months from the date the appellant makes pre-deposit of aggregate 25% of the total duty amount.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

¶38

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶39

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)

Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Rakhoh Enterprises) v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhoh Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as M/S. Rakhoh Enterprises) v. the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Commissionerate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apm Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Jik Industries Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 and Ors.

Jashwant Bhaichand Mehta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Usma Saffron Co. Inc, through Mr. Kamlesh M. Shah Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) and Ors.

M/S Procon Financial and Invenstment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income TAX-8 and Anr.

Dinar Yashwant Sohoni Vs the State Maharashtra, Secretary Education Ministry