Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Safex Equipments Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E.& Cus., Ahmedabad on 28 August, 2017
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, 2nd Floor, Bahumali Bhavan Asarwa, Ahmedabad Central Excise Appeal No.11896 of 2014-SM Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-111-13-14 dt.28.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise & Customs , Ahmedabad. Safex Equipments Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E.& Cus., Ahmedabad .. Respondent
Appearance:
Present Shri N.K. Oza, Advocate for the appellants Present Shri S. N. Gohil, A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue Coram: Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision:28.8.2017 Final Order No.A/12044/2017 Per Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides. This appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. AHM-EXCUS-001-APP-111-13-14 dt. 28.3.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals),Central Excise & Customs , Ahmedabad. The short issue involved in the present case is: whether the appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT credit of the duty shown on the invoices issued by the dealer, where other details relating to manufacturer who paid the duty, and details of such payments are not reflected, keeping the said columns blank. The appellants claim that later they produced a certificate from the said dealer who has indicated the name and address of the supplier, who is also a dealer, who paid the duty. Since it is not clear from the said invoices/clarification, the details of payment of duty and the manufacturer, who paid the duty, the authorities below had rightly confirmed the demand with interest and penalty observing that the said invoice is not a proper document for passing the credit. However, both the authorities below had not extended the benefit of discharging 25% of the penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of CCR,2004 read with Sec. 11AC of CEA,1944, which the appellants are entitled to subject to fulfilment of conditions laid down under the said provisions in view of the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Cus., Surat-I Vs. Krishnaram Dyeing & Finishing Works 2013 (298) ELT 376(Guj.). In the result, the impugned Order is modified accordingly and the appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.
(Dr. D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial scd/