Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Delhi-Iv, Faridabad vs M/S.Sethi Industrial Corporation on 3 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Appeal No.E/73/2006-Ex
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.85/CE/Appl/DLH-IV/2005 dated 14.10.2005 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-IV, Faridabad)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 03.02.2014
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, 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
CCE, Delhi-IV, Faridabad Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sethi Industrial Corporation Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri R.K.Mishra, DR Present for the Respondent: Shri J.P.Kaushik, Advocate Coram: Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhawa, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO.50581/2014 PER: ARCHANA WADHAWA Being aggrieved with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that modvat credit was sought to be denied to the respondent on various grounds. The same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority alongwith imposition of penalty. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed denial of credit in respect of certain items but dropped the confirmation in respect of credit of Rs.2,26,269/- and Rs.7,75,427/-. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.
3. As regard credit of Rs.2,26,269/-, the same was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the said material was not reflected in the material receipt voucher and the material register or purchase register of the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these records are private records and it is not mandatory to maintain private records. Accordingly, he held that when the goods have been entered in the statutory records, modvat credit cannot be denied.
4. I find no infirmity in the above view of the appellate authority; that the details of inputs stand entered in the statutory records; non entry of the same in the private records maintained by the respondent, when there is no obligation to maintain them, will not disentitle the assessee to avail credit, especially when there is no allegation or evidence showing non receipt of such inputs. As such, I find no merit in the Revenues contention.
5. As regards credit of Rs.7,75,427/-, lower authorities had denied the same on the ground that there was certain discrepancy on account of non entry of certain particulars in the invoices. The appellate authority has observed that absence of some particulars in the invoices issued by the suppliers stands accepted by the assessee but inasmuch as same is mistake due to oversight, credit cannot be denied merely on doubt as regards non receipt of inputs. He has further observed that the respondent has taken credit on the basis of invoices, which were issued and inputs were received under the cover of challan.
I find that both the objections are technical nature and cannot result in denial of substantive right of availment of credit in respect of inputs received by the assessee. There is no justification to do so in the absence of any allegation or evidence to show that either inputs are not received or not duty paid or the same were not used in the manufacture of final products.
In view of above, I find no merit in the Revenues appeal.
6. Revenue is also aggrieved with the finding of appellate authority setting aside of penalty imposed on respondent in respect of excess found seized goods. The original adjudicating authority has not confiscated the goods and has imposed equal amount of penalty to the value of seized goods. The appellant authority has set aside the same on the ground that the goods were still in the factory. Inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has not confiscated the goods, I find no justification for imposition of penalty on such count and the same stands rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
7. Accordingly appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court) (ARCHANA WADHAWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 5