Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Ashok Leyland Ltd on 6 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/257 & 258/2003
[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal Nos.2/2003 (M-I) and 3/2003 (M-I) both dated 17.01.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble 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 Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance :
Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR S/Shri R. Raghavan and M. Kannan, Adv/s.
For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr.Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 06.07.2009 Date of decision : 06.07.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram
Both appeals involve a common issue namely the issue of eligibility of credit on duty-paid inputs written off in the balance sheet. According to the department, credit is not admissible for the reason that the inputs have been written off in the books of accounts. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that there is nothing to show that the inputs are not still lying in the factory of the respondents and have been removed from their factory for use in the manufacture of final products. Hence credit cannot be denied in the light of the Tribunals order in the case of the same assessees reported in 2005 (191) E.L.T. 277 and the decisions reported in Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. [2005 (183) E.L.T. 300 (Tri.-Del.)] and Audco India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2005 (184) E.L.T.77 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the earlier decision of the Tribunal in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2002 (50) R.L.T.208 (CEGAT)] which is to the effect that credit cannot be denied in such a situation when the inputs are still lying in the factory, though they have been written off in the books of account and also on the presumption that inputs may not be used when there is no time limit for consumption.
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned orders and accordingly uphold the same and dismiss these appeals.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 10-07-2009 ??
??
??
??
1 2