Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Mound Trading Company Pvt. Ltd vs Cce & St, Jaipur I on 20 February, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 20/02/2015. DATE OF DECISION : 20/02/2015. Excise Appeal No. 2499 of 2011 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 215(DKV) CE/JPR-I/2011 dated 01.08.2011 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 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 would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Mound Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur I Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Chandran Nair, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri Yashpal Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 50431/2015 Dated : 20/02/2015 Per. Ashok Jindal :-
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat credit on capital goods has been denied to the appellant on the premise that the invoice on which capital goods obtained by the appellant are not in their name and the capital goods have been leased out by the principle manufacturer to the appellant who is not a finance company.
2. Heard the parties.
3. This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Wimplast Limited vs. CCE & ST, Daman reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T. 886 (Tri. Ahmd.) and appellants own case for the earlier period. Herein it was held that it is not disputed that appellant has not received the capital goods and capital goods are in possession of the appellants. In these circumstances, Tribunal held that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on capital goods. Therefore, following the precedent decision of this Tribunal in appellants own case and in the case of Wimplast Limited vs. CCE & ST, Daman (supra) we hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on capital goods. Consequently the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
2