Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Slatch Mechanical Works vs Cce, Panchkula on 11 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/Decision:11.07.2013
Excise Appeal No.E/1416 of 2006-EX (DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.33/GRM/PCK/2006 dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Haryana)
M/s.Slatch Mechanical Works Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Panchkula Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance: Rep. by Shri V. Swaminathan, Advocate for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri R.K. Mathur, DR for the respondent.
CORAM: Honble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No: 57035/11.07.2013 Per Archana Wadhwa:
After hearing both the sides, we find that the appellant was manufacturing Hot Press and parts thereof for Plywood Industries falling under Chapter 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act. During the relevant period, they were availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification, which allowed them to clear their final products without payment of duty for the first clearances upto to Rs.1 Crore.
2. Their factory was visited by the central excise officers on 27.5.2004, who conducted checks and verifications. Certain invoices showing excess clearance were recovered. When the value of the same was added to the total clearances, it turned out that the clearances exceeded Rs.1crore by Rs.30 approximately. Accordingly demand was raised against them and stands confirmed by the lower authorities.
3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that though they raised an issue that the invoices recovered by the officers were for repair of the goods for their clients but he is not pressing the confirmation of demand on this point of time. He, however, submits that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the said goods. His demand on the cenvat credit has been denied by the lower authority on the ground simplicitor that they were not registered with the Central Excise Department and they had not followed the procedure.
4. Admittedly, when the appellant was not working under the cenvat scheme and was availing the benefit of small scale exemption notification, he could not have been registered with the Central Excise Department and could not have followed the cenvat procedures. It is only when subsequently the demand was confirmed against him, he is submitting for allowing of credit to the extent available to him. The issue stands decided by many precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also the Honble Supreme Court. As such, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining the appellants claim of cenvat credit. Needless to say that the appellant would place the documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority showing the receipt of the inputs, the duty paid character of the inputs and utilization of such inputs in the manufacture of their final products. Upon examination of such documents, if the credit is available, the same would be allowed to the appellant and the duty confirmation against him would be reduced to that extent.
5. As the matter is being remanded back, the original adjudicating authority would decide the penalty imposition accordingly. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member (Judicial) ( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
2