Calcutta High Court
Bolpur Commissionerate vs M/S. Pondy Technology Ltd on 3 May, 2024
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
O-394
CEXA/8/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (Central Excise)
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,
BOLPUR COMMISSIONERATE
-Versus-
M/s. PONDY TECHNOLOGY LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI
And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
Date : 3rd May, 2024
Appearance:
Mr. K. K. Maiti, Adv.
...for the appellant.
Dr. Samit Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv.
...for the respondent.
1. Heard Sri Maiti, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri
Chakraborty, learned counsel assisted by Sri Bhaskar Sengupta, learned
Advocate for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been filed by the revenue praying to set aside the final
order dated No.76955/2019 dated 18.12.2019 passed by the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. We have perused the
impugned judgment and carefully considered the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties.
3. We find that in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has
noted the facts and activity of the respondent. In paragraphs 8 to 12, it
meticulously considered the controversy and the evidences on record and
thereafter recorded the finding as under:
"13. In the instant case also we find that it is an undisputed fact that
the appellant procured duty paid machineries, parts and accessories
of 'Continuous Automatic Coil to Coil Colour Coating Line' and
'Briqueting Hydraulic Press' and carried out the processing jobs
thereon as set out in the impugned order, which included "assembly"
to produce the aforesaid final products which were exported upon
payment of duty under claim of rebate. It is also seen from the
records that the input machines, parts and accessories were goods
classifiable as excisable goods by themselves under tariff items
different from the tariff items under which the exported final products
were classified. Hence, the principle laid down in the aforesaid
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Bench of the
Tribunal are applicable to the instant case. Respectfully following
the same, we are, therefore, of the view that the activities
undertaken by the appellant amounted to 'manufacture of excisable
goods within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act,
1944.
14. Consequently, the appellant is eligible to avail Cenvat Credit of
the duty paid on the said input machineries, parts, etc. under the
Cenvat Credit Rules and there is no infirmity on the part of the
appellant in availment of Cenvat credit in the instant case. The
disallowance of Cenvat credit of Rs.1,76,17,647/- and the duty
demand of Rs.61,94,772/- confirmed by the impugned order against
the appellant are therefore unsustainable."
4. We are of the view that the findings recorded by the tribunal are findings
of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record and law
settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, no substantial question of
law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the
appeal (CEXA/8/2022) is dismissed at the admission stage.
(SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.)
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)
A/s.
