Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Mrf Limited on 2 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/Co/24/2004 in E/254/2003
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 7/2003 (M-III) dated 17.01.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. MRF Limited : Respondent
Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the appellant Shri S. Ignatius, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 02.07.09 Date of decision : 02.07.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, The issue in this appeal relates to the eligibility to cenvat credit availed on the basis of supplementary invoices in respect of payment of differential duty on account of rate of duty difference. According to the Revenue, which is in appeal before the Tribunal, supplementary invoices issued when the payment of differential duty was made on account of finalization of provisional assessment or on account of price escalation alone were recognized as valid duty paying document before 2001. It is only after March 2001 that supplementary invoices for additional duty paid for any reason whatever has been recognized as valid duty paying document for taking credit. Credit was taken by the respondents on 28.02.2001 ie. one day prior to the notification vide which the provisions of the said rule were enlarged to treat supplementary invoices issued for any reason as valid document for availing credit.
2. We have heard both sides. There is no dispute regarding the requirement of payment of duty by the supplier of the inputs and no dispute regarding the credit of duty paid by the respondents. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal in Jindal Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-II reported in (164) ELT 294 (Tri.-Mum.), holding that the provisions regarding documents and accounts which had been made under Rule 57AE to regulate the procedure of taking credit cannot override the basic proposition that the credit has to be equal to the duty paid and that the credit has to be varied if the amount of duty paid is varied is applicable. It is well settled that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural irregularities. In this case taking of credit on supplementary invoices issued for payment of additional duty by the supplier on account of finalization of provisional assessment or on account of price escalation is only a procedural irregularity. Supplementary invoice raised is for payment of differential duty to rectify the incorrect adoption of rate of duty at the time of clearance from the factory. Therefore credit cannot be denied. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order extending credit and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
3. The cross objection is only in the nature of reply to/comments on the revenues appeal and is accordingly dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(C. SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
4