Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Salem vs M/S. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd on 2 September, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/330/2010
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 29/2010 (SLM) ST dated 16.03.2010, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
_________________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
CCE, Salem : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd. : Respondent
Appearance Shri T.H. Rao, SDR., for the appellant Smt. L. Maithili, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Date of hearing : 02.09.2010 Date of decision : 02.09.2010 ORDER No._____________ The Revenue is aggrieved by extension of credit of Rs.1,16,634/- to the assessees herein, who are manufacturers of Polyester and Viscose Yarn etc. Credit was sought to be denied on the ground that the documents such as Debit Notes, Freight Certificates etc., were not prescribed documents for the purpose of taking credit. Credit was disallowed and penalty was imposed by the adjudicating authority; the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of only Rs. 2,515/- on the ground that the documents on the strength of which this amount was taken was not addressed to the assessees. He, however, extended the credit of the amount of Rs.1,16,634/-, on the ground that the documents on the basis of which credit was taken contained all the requisite particulars for the purpose of extending the credit. He reduced the penalty on the assessees to Rs.2000/-. Hence this appeal of the Revenue.
2. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and find no warrant to interfere with the impugned order and it is based upon the Tribunals decision in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri.-Ahmd.), holding that once the details required under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, are shown in the documents such as debit notes on the strength of which the assessees took credit, there was no ground for denial of substantive right to credit. The same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the assessees own case as seen from Final Order No.463/10 dt. 21.04.10 and Final Order No. 694/10 dt. 24.06.10. In those cases, the issue was remanded for the purpose of examining whether the debit notes contained all the requisite particulars for the purpose of availment of credit. However, this case does not warrant any remand, for the reason that it is an admitted position that all the details required under Rule 9 (2) of the CCR,2004, were contained in the documents such as debit notes etc., on the strength of which the assessees have taken the credit. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order in so far as it relates to extending the credit of Rs. 1,16,634/- and reducing the penalty to Rs.2000/- (assessees have not challenged the confirmation of demand of Rs. 2,515/- and the penalty of Rs. 2,000/-) and reject the appeal.
(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE PRESIDENT BB 4