Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Filtrum Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Pune I on 5 March, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II
IN APPEAL NO. E/125/10-MUM
(Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. P-1/VSK/268/2009 dated December 23, 2009 and passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Pune.)
For approval and signature: Shri Sahab Singh, Honble Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for Publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen yes of the order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : yes authorities?
Filtrum Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd.
: Appellant
Versus
CCE, Pune I
: Respondent
Appearance Shri Mihir Deshmukh, Advocate : For Appellant Shri Sanjay Kalara, Appraiser (A.R.) : For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Sahab Singh, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing :
05.03.2012 Date of Decision:
05.03.2012 ORDER NO. ............................................
Per: Sahab Singh This is an appeal filed by the M/s. Filtrum Tools & Components Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) against the Order-in-Appeal No. P-1/VSK/268/2009 dated December 23, 2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturer of excisable goods and had availed the CENVAT credit on inputs cleared to the job worker under a challan issued under Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT credit Rules and received back after discharge of duty by the job worker. The Department has not allowed the CENVAT credit of duty paid by the job worker. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner on 12th November 2009 by confirming duty along with interest and imposing equal amount of penalty. The appellant challenged the Order-in-Original in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order rejected their appeal. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this is a fact that the duty has been paid by the job worker and inputs were returned to the appellant. Once duty has been paid by job worker, there is no reason for denying to CENVAT credit of duty paid by job worker on inputs returned after processing to the appellant. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CCE, Goa Vs. Nestle India Ltd. 2012(275)E.L.T. 49 (Bom.) in support of his contention.
4. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that the appeal has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. After hearing both the sides, I find that question involved in the appeal is whether the duty paid by the job worker on goods, received back by the appellant can be availed as CENVAT credit by the appellant. I find that the issue involved in the appeal is clearly covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra). Once the duty has been paid by job worker on goods sent back to appellant, there is no reason to deny benefit of CENVAT credit to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
(Dictated in Court)
(Sahab Singh) Member (Technical)
Sp/
3