KUTTY DOORS AND FURNITURE CO. PVT. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question of law and facts are involved in these four appeals, hence they are taken up together for disposal in terms of law.

(2.) THE appellants raised a dispute on for classification of the Block Board which was finally decided in terms of the Apex Court judgement rendered in their own case as under Chapter sub heading 4408.90. In terms of the finalisation of the classification, the appellants were issued with demands for short levy which was required to be paid in terms of the judgement rendered in their own case settling the classification. The appellants took the stand that they were entitled for the benefit deduction of sales tax, and the duty to be treated as cum -duty in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, their plea for consiering the duty a cum -duty was not accepted by the lower authorities in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of ACC v. Bata India Ltd. . The issue was re -considered by the Tribunal by a Larger Bench in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres v. CCE . The issue was further examined by the Apex Court in the case of CCJS v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. the Apex Court held that the duty has to be treated as cum -duty in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the CEA and upheld the assessee's contention. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that the demands confirmed without granting the benefit of cum -duty, is required to be set aside and relief granted.

(3.) LD . DR Shri A. Jayachandran reiterated the lower authorities findings in the matter.