Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Sona Koya Steering Systems Ltd on 6 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/56/2002
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.213/2001 (M-II) dated 3.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. 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 Members wish 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. Sona Koya Steering Systems Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, Jt. CDR for the Appellant None for the Respondents CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 06.08.2009 Date of Decision: 06.08.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that the assessee/respondent is entitled to take re-credit of Rs.3,74,000/- originally paid vide Invoice No. 1295 dated 18.8.1999 as denial of the same would amount to double taxation.
2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Hence we have heard the learned Jt. CDR and perused the records.
3. The undisputed facts are that the assessee-company has two manufacturing plants one at Chennai and other at Gurgaon, that M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Chennai have raised a purchase order for supply of moulds and dies for column and joint assembly and gear complete assembly steering and based on the above, the assessee had issued Invoice No. 1295 dated 18.8.1999 for clearance of the goods on payment of duty of Rs.3,74,400/-. M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. clarified vide letter dated 13.11.99 that they had wrongly placed a purchase order on Chennai factory instead of Gurgaon factory and hence they cancelled the purchase order dated 20.5.99 and issued a fresh purchase order dated 13.11.99 and requested for issue of invoice from the Gurgaon factory and also returned the original duty paid document dated 18.8.1999 to the assessee without taking MODVAT credit. Based on the fresh purchase order dated 13.11.1999, Gurgaon factory of the assessee raised another Invoice No. 3569 dated 16.5.2000 for supply of the said goods on payment of same amount of duty. In view of the above, payment of duty twice on the same goods once by the assessee-factory at Chennai and second time by the assessee-factory at Gurgaon is established. Therefore, the assessees are entitled to take re-credit of the amount in question. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
2