Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Vaibhav & Company vs Cce, Coimbatore on 17 December, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI E/416/09 & E/417/09 (Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 73/2009-CE dated 27.04.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Coimbatore). For approval and signature Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member M/s. Vaibhav & Company : Appellant Vs. CCE, Coimbatore : Respondent
Appearance Shri T. Ramesh, Adv., for the appellant Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of hearing : 17.12.2009 Date of decision : 17.12.2009 FINAL ORDER No._____________ Per: Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. As the appeal itself can be heard and decided today itself, the requirement of predeposit is waived and the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of both sides.
2. Shri T. Ramesh, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants filed the required declaration under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, after a delay on account of the fact that the consultant of the appellants who was entrusted with the job of filing the declaration did not file it within time. However, the appellants did have the stock of inputs on the specified date ie., on 31.03.03 and hence they should not be denied the credit.
3. Heard the Ld. SDR, Shri T.H. Rao, who supports the impugned order and states that since the requirement of filing the declaration by 15.06.03 has not been complied with, the appellants have been rightly denied the credit.
4. I find that the relevant Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, is a transitional provision, which was introduced consequent to imposition of excise duty on grey fabrics. The said Rule has two conditions; one is that the appellants should make a declaration of the stock of inputs by 15.06.03 and the documents evidencing actual payment of duty thereon should also be available. In the case of the appellants, the documents evidencing actual payment of duty thereon are available, the necessary declaration had also been filed but after a delay for the reasons explained by the Ld. Advocate.
5. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into account, I am of the view that the appellants cannot be denied the credit though they can be penalized for filing the necessary declaration beyond the stipulated date. Accordingly, the impugned order denying the credit is set aside and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- is determined in place of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- imposed under the impugned order. The second appeal No. E/417/09 is also allowed by setting aside the impugned order which has been passed consequent upon the appellants utilizing the credit denied under the first order, which is the subject matter of the appeal No. E/416/09.
6. The appeal No. E/416/09 is partly allowed in the above terms and the appeal No. E/417/09 is allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 4