Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hpl Electric & Power Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Delhi-I on 3 October, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. E/1490/2011-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 15-16/2011 dated 07.04.2011 passed by Commr. (Appeals) New Delhi]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 should 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 Departmental authorities?
M/s HPL Electric & Power Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s)
(formerly known as M/s HPL Socomec Pvt. Ltd.)
Vs.
C.C.E. Delhi-I Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. M. R. Sharma (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 03.10.2016 Final Order No. 54812 /2016 Per S. K. Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Energy Meters falling under Chapter heading 9028 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. The goods namely, Single Phase Base APCP is used as input in the manufacture of the final product, which the appellant procures from its Unit-II. During the disputed period the appellant had availed the cenvat credit of Central Excise duty of Rs. 10,39,777/- indicated in the invoice No. 814 dated 31.10.2007 issued by the Unit-II. Taking of Cenvat Credit by the appellant was disputed by the Central Excise Department on the ground that higher amount of duty has been paid by Unit-II which is not entitle for cenvat credit to the appellant.
2. Ms. Sukriti Das, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 permits a manufacture to take cenvat credit of Central Excise duty indicated therein, subject to condition that the goods have been received in the factory of the manufacturer. She further submits that since Rule 3 entitles a manufacturer to take the credit indicated in the invoice, credit cannot be denied to the recipient unit on the ground that incorrect duty has been paid by the supplier unit. To support her above view, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (229) ELT 485 SC and also the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE vs Purity FLexpack Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 361 (Guj.).
3. Sh. M.R. Sharma, the Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides.
5. I find that duty character of the goods and their receipt in the factory of the appellant has not been disputed by the Central Excise department. Since, taking of cenavt credit in the facts and circumstances of the case is in conformity with Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, I am of the view that cenvat benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the supplier of goods has paid incorrect amount of duty on the goods supplied to the recipient manufacturer. I find support from the judgments relied on by the Ld. Advocate, wherein it has been held that classification of rate of duty cannot be finalized at the suppliers end, cannot be questioned or reopened by the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities at the recipients end for creating the duty liability. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and allow the appeal in favor of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/1490/2011-E[SM]