IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 101 of 2014 Date: 16.09.2014 Between:
The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad –I Commissionerate, Hyderabad.
… Appellant And M/s. Matrix Laboratories Ltd., (Unit-II), Medak District.
… Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 101 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The Revenue filed this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore. The following suggested questions of law are sought to be raised.
“1. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the clearance of inputs as such which are procured from other manufacturers by the respondent to 100% EOU without payment of duty or without reversal of CENVAT credit availed on said inputs contrary to the condition of the Notification No.22/2003- CE dated 31.03.2003 requiring the 100% EOU to procure the excisable goods directly from factory of manufacture.
2. Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in allowing the benefit o f Notification No.22/03-CE dated 31.03.2003 for the said clearance by relying on the Tribunal decision in the case of Solectron Centum Electronics Ltd. vs. CCE (Appeals), Bangalore 2009 (240) E.L.T. 51 (Tri.Bang.), where the goods involved in that case were the capital goods, which were put to use for a considerable period and whereas in the instant case the goods are inputs procured, availed credit of duty paid and cleared to 100% EOU as such without reversal of credit availed.”
Perusal of the order under appeal reflects that the Tribunal, having considered the matter on merits, found that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in 2001 (267) ELT (160) squarely applied to the case on hand though the said judgment related to capital goods and not inputs. That apart, the Tribunal found that the assessee was entitled to relief under the statutory rules viz., Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal went beyond the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and held in favour of the assessee insofar as the issue of limitation was concerned. Given the findings rendered by the Tribunal we find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 16.09.2014 ES