Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Kanade Anand Udyog Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Thane I on 18 August, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/96575/13
IN APPEAL NO. E/87796/13 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BR/165/TH-I/2013 dated 21.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
M/s Kanade Anand Udyog Pvt. Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Thane I
Respondent
Appearance Shri Prashant Nawalkar, Advocate For appellants Shri A. Nath, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 18.08.2014 Date of Decision : 18.08.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with an application for stay against the impugned order wherein input/inputs credit have been denied to the appellant on the premise that Bills of Entry are not in their name.
2. Heard both sides.
3. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after granting waiver of pre-deposit I take up the appeal for final disposal with the consent of both sides.
4. The case is that whether the appellant imported certain inputs/capital goods and Bills of Entry were in the name of their Head Office in all the six cases but in one case the address of the appellant itself was mentioned in the Bill of Entry. All the Bills of Entry were endorsed in the name of the appellant by their Head Office and the lorry receipt shows that the goods were delivered in the premises of the appellant only but the lower authorities denied CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods on the premise that the Bills of Entry were in the name of the Head Office but are not in the name of the appellant therefore the appellant is not entitled to take CENVAT Credit as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me.
5. On perusal of the records, I find that it is not in dispute that lorry receipts and the Bills of Entry are having endorsements in the name of the appellant. Therefore, as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods. The lower authorities have not understood the said provisions in true spirit therefore, they passed the impugned order. As the order is totally wrong and contrary to the provisions of law therefore, the same is set aside by holding that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods in question. In these terms, the appeal is allowed. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
3