Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Page Industries Ltd vs Bangalore-Service Tax on 12 November, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 21998 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/26523/2013 in E/26193/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/26193/2013-DB [Arising out of OIO No.16-2013 dated 23/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , BANGALORE-I ] Page Industries Ltd Abbaiah Reddy Industrial Area, Jockey Campus, 6/2, And 6/4, Hongasandra, Begur Hobli, BANGALORE - 560068 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX NULL Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. RUKMANI MENON, Advocate 128,A WING, 1ST FLOR,RHEHA ARCADE, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE BANGALORE - 560095 KARANATAKA For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 12/11/2014 Date of Decision: 12/11/2014 Order Per : B.S.V.MURTHY The appellant is engaged in manufacture of innerwear, leisure wear, sportswear, thermal wear and socks for men and women. After hearing both sides for some, we decided to deal with the appeal. Accordingly, the requirement of predeposit is waived and appeal is taken up for final decision.
2. The details of disputes, submissions, counter submissions and our conclusions are as under:-
i. The first issue is availment of credit by the appellant based on invoices addressed to head office and not to the appellants premises. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order has accepted the submission of the appellants that since the issue relates to initial period of introduction of new procedure for registration of principal manufacturer in the case of garments and not the job workers, the mistakes happened and accordingly has allowed the credit of Rs.2,39,98,043/-. However, he has disallowed credit of Rs.13,44,955/- on the ground that no documentary evidence was produced to indicate actual receipt and use of inputs/capital goods under the invoices mentioned in the table either at Bommasandra or at job working units. The learned counsel submitted that in these cases also, the only lapse was that invoices were addressed to head office. She submits that now the appellants have documents to show receipt of inputs at the job workers premises, receipt of finished goods at their Bommsandra unit and clearance on payment of duty. She submits that all these documents were available but have been seized by the Department. However, she submits that a set of documents to show that inputs were indeed received and accounted for.
On going through the impugned order, we found that in the impugned order, a table is given below paragraph 8.1. It has been stated in the paragraph that the details on some sample purchase invoices / bills of entry towards purchase of inputs and capital goods and CENVAT credit availed by the appellant and showing the buyers address and where the goods delivered or used are given below. At the end of the table in paragraph 8.2, it has been stated that the buyer and the consignee are different. The impression that one gets is that some random sample invoices have been picked up to show that the invoices were addressed to the head office but goods were received in the job workers premises or otherwise and not accounted for properly. However the very same table has been reproduced by the Commissioner and he has observed I find that only in the following cases, the allegation is that the goods are not received by M/s. PIL and inasmuch as there is no evidence to indicate that the goods have been received by the assessees. It is surprising that out of demand for more than Rs.2.53 crores propably arising because of the observations based on sample invoices, the Commissioner chooses to allow the credit of more than Rs.2.39 crores but disallows only the balance which are covered by the sample invoices collected at random. Nevertheless, the learned counsel submitted that she will be able to show that the goods have been received, utilised and finished goods have been manufactured and duty has been paid. Therefore both sides agreed that the matter should be remanded to consider these evidences. At this stage, we also observe that now that the impugned order has been passed, either the seized documents or the copies of the seized documents should be provided to the appellants before fresh adjudication is taken up.
ii. CENVAT credit of Rs.18,21,988/- has been denied on the ground that appellants have taken the credit on basic customs duty also in respect of inputs received from 100% EOU. The learned counsel submits that appellants have already reversed the amount disallowed which according to them has been wrongly taken. She submits that Rs.9,33,163/- should not have been disallowed and credit has been taken correctly. This also can be verified when the matter is adjudicated again.
iii. The next issue relates to wrong availment of credit on plastic crates, pellets etc. The learned counsel submitted that appellants have deposited the entire amount of CENVAT credit disallowed and a small amount according to the learned AR has not been paid. The learned counsel undertook to verify the correctness of the reversal made by them and ensure that entire amount disallowed would be paid.
3. The discussion above would show that the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication keeping our observations hereinabove in mind. The stay petition also gets disposed of. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) S.K. MOHANTY JUDICIAL MEMBER B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
4