Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Indore vs M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd on 22 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 22.01.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2732/2007 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/142/2007, dated 02.08.2007 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Indore-I]
C.C.E., Indore Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Ipca Laboratories Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the appellants Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.__50244__, dated 22.01.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Being aggrieved with the order passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri BB Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for Revenue and Shri Hemant Bajaj representing the respondents.
2. As per facts on record, the respondents were receiving inputs, on which they were availing CENVAT credit. Such inputs were being sent to their job worker either directly or through them. The job worker was paying duty on the final product, which was being cleared by them on behalf of the respondents, by raising the invoice on their account. The job worker was being re-imbursed by the respondents as regards job charges as also the duty paid him.
3. In the above scenario, the Revenue entertained a view that the respondents were not entitled to the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs, in as much they have not paid the duty themselves on the final product manufactured by the job worker. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated, resulting in confirmation of the same by the original adjudicating authority.
On appeal against the said order, Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confirmation of duty as also imposition of penalties on merits and point of limitation also and on the point of Revenue neutrality.
Hence the present appeal filed by the Revenue.
4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the impugned order, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in as much as the duty on the final product stands paid by the job worker, the respondents are entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs so supplied by them to the job worker. The fact that the assessee himself has not discharged the duty liability would not result in denial of credit. He has also observed that the movement of inputs to the job worker was with the permission of the Commissioner and the said fact of availment of credit was duly reflected by the assessee in their statutory records. In such a scenario, no suppression can be attributed to the respondents and extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue.
5. I do not find any infirmity in the above view of the Commissioner (Appeals). If the goods manufactured at the job workers end were returned to the assessee and then cleared by them on payment of duty, they were admittedly entitled to availment of CENVAT credit duty paid on the inputs. As per the respondents, when the duty was paid by the job worker, the same stands re-imbursed by them. As such, it has to be observed that the duty is deemed to have been paid by the manufacturer, through the job worker and the Revenue has received the entire duty element due to them. In such a case, denial of credit to the respondents would not be justified.
6. In any case, I also find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the entire credit having been taken by the respondents on statutory records and having been reflected in them, no suppression can be attributed to them. Accordingly, the demand raised beyond the normal period of limitation has rightly been struck down by the appellate authority as barred by limitation.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in Revenues appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-