Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Indore vs M/S.Fatehpuria Vidyut Udyog Pvt. Ltd on 17 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:17.07.2014
Excise Appeal No.1750 of 2006-EX(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/74/2006 dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Indore)
CCE, Indore Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Fatehpuria Vidyut Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Appearance: Rep. by Ms. Sweta Bector, DR for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Final Order No52906/Dated:17.07.2014
Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing ld. DR, Ms. Sweta Bector for the Revenue and ld. Advocate, Shri Manish Saharan for the respondent, we find that the respondent are engaged in the manufacture of transformers. They opted to avail the exemption notification no.9/2003-CE dated 1.03.2003 and accordingly, started availing cenvat credit on the inputs to be utilized in the manufacture of the transformers. During the period Jan.2004 to March, 2004, they manufactured 186 nos. of transformers. However, the same were not cleared by the appellant during the said period. Further, the appellant cleared some transformers, which were repaired by them. The credit of duty on the inputs used in such repaired transformers was reversed by them.
2. The proceedings were initiated against them alleging that during the period in question, they did not clear their final products and only cleared the repaired transformers. The proceedings culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority denying the credit of Rs.4,16,663/- and imposing penalty.
3. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by observing that the inputs, in respect of which credit has been availed, were admittedly used in the manufacture of final products, though the final products were not cleared during the period Jan., 2004 to March, 2004.
4. The above findings of the facts arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) do not stand rebutted by the Revenue. Otherwise also, we find that the case made out in the show cause notice was as to whether the assessee has the option to switch over from notification no.08/2003-CE to 09/2003-CE , which even the original adjudicating authority held in their favour. As such, we find no merit in the Revenues appeal. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1