Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Raj Kesari Electodes Pvt Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur on 5 February, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No.3654/2008-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.465/HKS/CE/JPR.II/06 dated 17.8.06passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur )
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, 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 Raj Kesari Electodes Pvt Ltd Appellant
(Rep. by Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate)
Vs
CCE, Jaipur Respondent
(Rep. by Shri S. Gautam, DR) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 5 .2.2008 Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the original manufacturer M/s SAIL paid duty @ 8% Ad-valorem. M/s ABS Steel Ltd, registered under Central Excise as manufacturer purchased the goods from M/s SAIL and cleared the said goods on payment of duty @ 12% Ad-valorem to M/s D.M. Engg Ltd. a registered dealer. The appellant purchased the goods from registered dealer and availed credit @ 12% Ad-valorem on the said goods. It has been held by both the authorities below that the appellants are eligible to take credit @ 8% Ad-valorem as paid by the original manufacturer and not @ 12% Ad-valorem as paid by M/s ABS Steel Ltd.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, it is seen that Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants are not eligible to avail credit @ 12% Ad-valorem because Rule 3(1)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that the manufacturer or producer of final products shall be allowed to take credit of the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, leviable under the Act. I find that sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of documents specified therein. In this case, there is no dispute that the appellants availed credit on the basis of invoices issued by registered dealer as prescribed in the said Rule and duty was paid @ 12% Ad-Valorem by M/s ABS Steel Ltd. The Tribunal in the case of Eveready Industries (I) Ltd Vs CCE Allahabad reported in 1998 (103) ELT 672 held that Central Excise authorities having jurisdiction over the manufacturers of final products cannot challenge assessments made by Central Excise officers having jurisdiction over the input supplier. In this case, the appellants availed credit on the basis of invoice of the registered dealer and payment of duty @ 12% ad-valorem is not disputed. Therefore, I do not find any reason for denial of credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)