Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Tvs Suzuki Ltd on 21 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/CO/25/2004 & E/452/2003
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 26/2003 (M.III) (D) dated 07.03.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
_________________________________________________________
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, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. TVS Suzuki Ltd. : Respondent
Appearance Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the appellant Shri M. Kannan, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 21.10.09 Date of decision : 21.10.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, According to the Revenue which is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending modvat credit of duty paid on the strength of supplementary invoices, credit is inadmissible.
2. We have heard both sides. The issue has been decided against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in CCE, Madras Vs. Home Ashok Leyland Ltd. 2007 (210) ELT 178 (S.C.), upholding the decision of the Honble Madras High Court reported in 2001 (134) ELT 647 (Mad.), holding that the assessee is entitled to avail additional credit in respect of additional duty paid on inputs while interpreting the provisions of Rule 57 E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Following the ratio of the above decision, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
3. The cross-objection is in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenues appeal and hence it is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3