Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Deepthi Formulations Pvt. Ltd on 23 December, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE COURT - I Appeal No: E/1818/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.7/2010 (H-III) CE dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-III), Hyderabad.) Date of Hearing: 23.12.2011 Date of decision: 23.12.2011 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? The Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad-III Commissionerate Hyderabad. Appellant Vs. M/s. Deepthi Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance For the appellants : Mr. Ravi Chandra, DR For the respondents : None CORAM SHRI P. G. CHACKO, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2011 In this appeal of the department, the short question to be considered is whether the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit of Rs.6,840/- on the inputs supplied by M/s. Planet India Remedies Pvt. Ltd. during the period from July to September 2008. According to the appellant, the input was not excisable as it resulted from a process (cutting and slitting of jumbo aluminium foils) which did not amount to manufacture as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. S. R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. - 2005 (186) ELT 385 (SC). Therefore, according to the appellant, the manufacturer of final product was not entitled to claim CENVAT credit of any duty paid on such input. There is no representation for the respondent today. However, their written submissions are available on record. The respondent has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to receipt of aluminium foils in their factory and use thereof in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. There is also no dispute with regard to the payment of duty by the input supplier. In the circumstances, the respondent has justified the view taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
2. After hearing the Superintendent (AR) for the appellant, I have found no successful rebuttal against the respondents submissions. He has reiterated the grounds of this appeal and has referred to the Supreme Courts judgment in S. R. Tissues case.
3. After considering the submissions, I find that the respondent satisfied the essential requirements for CENVAT credit. Notwithstanding excisability of the input, the supplier of the input paid duty thereon and issued a valid invoice to the respondent. The input so received in the respondents factory was used in or in relation to manufacture of their final product and its duty-paid character was evidenced by the invoices. In the circumstances, the respondent was entitled to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on the input as rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals). The question whether the input had arisen out of a process of manufacture is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether the input was duty-paid.
4. In the result, this appeal of the department is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in Open Court) (P. G. CHACKO) Member (Judicial) rv ??
??
??
??
3