Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex., Hyderabad-IV vs Rcc Sales (P) Ltd.

Goda Raghuram, J.—This appeal u/s 30(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is preferred by the revenue against the final order dated 21-5-2010 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. Excise/1140/2009, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 08 of 2009 dated 30-9-2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad. The respondents are manufacturers of Safety Razor Blades. A demand notice was issued to the respondents seeking demand of Cenvat credit availed by them in respect of Special Additional Duty of Customs debited in Target Plus/DEPB Scheme. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated by a show cause notice; aggrieved whereby the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority, relying upon an earlier decision of the CESTAT-in Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd. - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 400 (Tribunal) dismissed the appeal and upheld the Order-in-Original. Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred a further appeal to the CESTAT.

In dismissing the appeal the CESTAT held, following the earlier decision in C.C.E., Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. - 2010 (261) E.L.T. 594 (Tribunal) that in view of the Circular No. 18/2006-Cus., dated 5-6-2006 holding that the duty debited through DEPB, DFCE, Target Plus etc. schemes would be eligible for Cenvat benefit or drawback facility by the licensed holder and full credit of the 4% Special CVD will be allowed to manufacturers of excisable goods and further clarified that 4% CVD duty debited in DEPB, EFCE, Target Plus etc. certificates may be allowed to be taken back at draw back (brand rate). As the primary and appellate authorities and the further appellate authority had calculated rightly, relying upon the Circular dated 5-6-2006 and an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Aurobindo (2 supra), no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.