Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 4 July, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1488/2011-EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 05/RPR-I/2011 dated 11.01.2011 passed by CCE, Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate for the Appellant Shri R.K.Mishra, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 04.07.2014 FO ORDER NO. 52864 /2014 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
In this case there is Cenvat credit demand against the appellant on the ground that on the basis of invoices regarding supply of certain capital goods issued by M/s. Ashoka Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. Distt. North 24 Praganas, West Bengal, they have taken Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,28,277/- during the period from July 2005 to August, while the invoices issued by M/s. Ashoka Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. were without supply of any goods. There is an alert notice issued by Central Excise Commissionerate, Calcutta-lll on record which mentions issue of a Show Cause Notice No. V(30)2/CE/AE/Kol-lll/2007/12865 dated 30.11.2007 to M/s. Ashoka Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. for demand of wrongly availed Cenvat credit of Rs. 18,11,28,784/-. The allegation in the Show Cause Notice against M/s. Ashoka Electricals Stampings P. Ltd. is that they had no infrastructure whatsoever for manufacture of electrical motors, control panels, electrical transformers and other items and that they have shown bogus receipt of raw material, bogus manufacture of finished goods and issued bogus invoices for final goods on the basis of which, their customers have taken Cenvat credit.
2. Accordingly proceedings were initiated resulting in passing of the present impugned orders.
3. I find that the same investigations were subject matter the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur Vs. Satya Power & Ispat Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (294) ELT 524 (Tri.-Del.).
4. For better appreciation, relevant para 2 and 4 of the said order is reproduced below:-
2. Revenue filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Brief facts of the case are that the respondent purchased capital goods vide invoice No. 266 dated 11.03.2005 from M/s. Ashok Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. and availd credit of Rs. 4,08,000/- in respect of duty paid on the capital goods. The Revenue issued a show cause notice for denial of credit on the ground that there was an alert notice issued in 09/17-4-2008 to the fact that M/s. Ashok Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. has not taken any manufacturing activity and only issuing duty paying documents. The adjudicating authority in view of the alert notice confirmed the demand and imposed the penalty. The respondent filed appeal against the order and the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order. The case of the revenue is that the capital goods which were found in the factory of the respondent received under the invoice from M/s. Ashok Electricals Stampings Pvt. Ltd. as no marking to identify the capital goods with the invoice on the strength of which credit has been availed.
4. I find that the capital goods received in the factory in 2005 and respondent availed credit in respect of duty paid by the supplier only in the year 2008, same alert notice has been issued in respect of M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of alert notice the Revenue officer visited the factory premises of the respondent and found that the capital goods on which the credit has been availed in the factory. The only objection of the respondent is that the capital goods has no marking of M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. It is not the case of the Revenue that respondent has procured the capital goods from some other supplier and received duty paying documents from M/s. Ashok Electrical Stampings Pvt. Ltd. As the capital goods in question was in possession of the respondent even at the time of visit of the Revenue officer, therefore, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
5. By following the above order, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3