Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rinox Engg vs Cce Chandigarh I on 27 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 1545 of 2010-Ex(SM) [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 89/CE/LDH/2010 dt. 17.3.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh ] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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? 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. Rinox Engg. Appellants Vs. CCE Chandigarh I Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. S Sharma, AR for the Respondents Date of Hearing : 23.01.2014 Date of Hearing : 27.02.2014 ORDER NO .FO/ A/ 50757 /2014-SM(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa:
Cenvat credit of Rs.71,022/- stand denied to the appellant which was availed by them on the basis of cenvatable invoices issued by M/s. Sidh Industries, a registered dealer. The credit stand denied on the ground that the said registered dealer was not found available at the premises disclosed in his registration and his registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 1.4.06. The period involved in the present appeal is from June, 2006 to February, 2007 when admittedly the dealer was a registered dealer. Revenue has also relied upon the statement of said dealer as also of the manufacturer M/s. Uttam Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., who have deposed that they were dealing with paper transaction and were only issuing invoices. However, in their statements, they have not particularly named the present appellant.
2. Admittedly, the present appellant availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by the registered dealer who were carrying all the requisite particulars along with his registration number. The said invoices so received by the appellant duly stand entered by them in their RG 23A Part I register and shown to have been used in the manufacture of final product cleared on payment of duty. Apart from the general statement of the dealer ofn the manufacturer, there is no evidence on record to show that inputs were not actually received by the appellant or they have procured the inputs from any other sources. In the absence of inputs, the appellant could not have manufactured their final product. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation of procurement of inputs from any other sources, the inputs received by the appellant have to be held as having been received under the cover of cenvatable invoices issued by the registered dealer. As per the provisions of Rule 7 of Cenvat credit Rules, a manufacturer is under a legal obligation to verify the identity of the person supplying the inputs and is not expected to go beyond it and find out as to whether the supplier was procuring the goods in accordance with the law or not.
3. An identical dispute was the subject matter of another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Talson Mill Store vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana vide its Final Order No. A/976/2012-SM(BR)] Tribunal held in favour of the assessee and has held that reliance on the sole statement of representative of M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises cannot be appreciated. Inasmuch as the facts in the present case are identical to the facts and circumstances of the case of Talson Mills Store. By following the same as also the pronouncement of law made in the above referred various judgments of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court on )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2