Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Century Laminating Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut ... on 18 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
Ex. Appeal No.3605/05
Arising out of OIA No.203-CE/MRT-II/2005 dated 31.08.2005 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut II.
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, 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? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? : Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? : Yes
M/s Century Laminating Co.Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri A. P. Mathur, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan, A.C. (A.R.) for the Department CORAM:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 18. 01. 2016 ORDER NO.__________________________ Per Mr. Anil Choudhary :
The issue in this appeal is whether cenvatable inputs stored outside factory for want of space, which were brought inside the factory in small lotS, whether the appellants have rightly taken Cenvat credit on receipt of the last lot for the invoices, after expiry of six months from invoice date whether the same is allowable in view of Rule 57D (6) or the successor Rule 57G (2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The ld.Counsel for the appellant, brings to my notice that the issue is squarely covered by the Ruling of the Honble Allahabad High Court in Central Excise Reference No.19 of 2001 being the Final Order dated 11.02.2015 in the appellants own case.
4. Having perused the order of the Honble Allahabad High Court as aforementioned, I find that the issue is squarely covered and the Honble High Court have recorded the following findings :
Rule 57D (6) now 57G (2) of the Central Excise Rules read as under :
Provided further that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date issue of any of the document specified in first proviso to this sub-rule.
The aforesaid rules makes it apparently clear that the manufacturer shall not take credit after six months of the date of issue of any document. The assessee applied for permission to store the inputs used outside the factory premises. This application was rejected, with the direction that the assessee could bring in the goods in smaller lots and take credit on the receipt of the last and final lot. Based on this direction, the assessee brought the goods in smaller lots spaced over a period of time, and the last and final lot apparently was brought in, after the expiry of six months.
We find that the department had issued a Trade Notice No.67 of 1996 dated June 1996 clarifying and deciding to allow modvat credit, in such situations where a manufacture after buying the goods could not bring them inside the factory premises on account of shortage of space or under other unforeseen, unavoidable circumstances, etc. Clause 5 (v) of the said departmental trade notice stated as under :
5(v). The manufacturer can take credit of quantity of inputs in RG 23A Pt.I as and & when these are received inside the factory premises under the cover of delivery challan issued from the storage place. However, credit entry in RG 23A Pt.II, shall be taken only when entire quantity of inputs covered under a particular invoice received at the storage godown is transshipped & received inside the factory for being put to use in production. These entries shall be made item-wise separately. The aforesaid trade notice clearly indicates that credit entry can only be taken only when the entire quantity of inputs covered under a particular invoice is received due to the shortage of godown.
In the light of the aforesaid, when certain goods based on the invoice was received during the period of six months but the last and final lot was received after the period of six months, we are of the opinion that Rule 57D (6) now Rule 57G (2) of the Rules being procedural in nature does not dis-entitle the claim of the assessee for claiming modvat credit. In the absence of any deliberate delay, coupled with the fact that the transaction executed by the assessee, being a bonafide one and, based on the direction of the Superintendent, Central Excise dated 8th February, 1995, the assessee, in the instant case, was entitled for modvat credit. The Trade Notice No.67 of 1996 clarifies such peculiar circumstances.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that the applicant-assessee was entitled to the modvat credit based on the letter of the Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Hapur dated 8th February, 1995. The question of law is answered accordingly.
5. Accordingly, in terms of ruling of the Honble Allahabad High Court in the appellants own case, this appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any and the impugned order is set aside. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (ANIL CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mm 5 Ex. Appeal No.3605/05