Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd vs Cce, Chennai Iii on 28 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal Nos. E/40652/2016
and
E/41786 to 41789/2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 276/2015 (CXA-I) dated 28.12.2015 and Order-in-Appeal No.115 to 118/2016 (CXA-I) dated 29.6.2015 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Chennai)
M/s. Sundaram Auto Components Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai III Respondent
Appearance Shri G. Viswanathan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 28.10.2016 Final Order Nos. 42049-42053 / 2016 Appeal No. E/40652/2016 While learned adjudicating authority in page 21 of his order makes a finding that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the transport services in terms of Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007, he doubted without any reason that there is no mention about inclusion of freight element in the product cost.
2. It is strange to notice such a finding, when he has not rejected the certificate issued by the Cost Accountant (copy of which is available at page 58 of the appeal folder). It may be stated that suspicion, however grave may be, not being substituted, appeal is allowed.
3. In the result, appeal E/40652/2016 is allowed.
Appeal Nos. E/41786 to 41789/2016
4. It does not appeal to common sense how a manufacturer shall suffer loss without recovering cost of manufacture incurred through various elements of cost from the buyer. When the authority was clear that there was Cost Accountant certificate before him, it is very strange that why he has not examined whether the cost of transport was included in the cost sheet.
5. Appellant invited attention to pages 77 and 82 of the appeal folder to demonstrate that transport cost was recovered through cost of manufacture.
6. Bare perusal of the cost sheet indicates that the appellant has made transport as cost of manufacture. There is no specific examination done by the authority to hold that the freight incurred in respect of transport was recovered by the appellant otherwise.
7. For no rational decision taken on the basis of the material fact, the adjudication is unsustainable. Accordingly, all the appeals arising out of this common cause are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 3