Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Jaipur vs M/S. Bhilai Wires Ltd on 12 March, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT III EXCISE APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2007-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 07/RPR-II/2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Customs & Central Excise, Raipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) 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 would 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? CCE, Jaipur Appellant Vs. M/s. Bhilai Wires Ltd., Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. Gautam, D.R. for the Revenue/appellant; Smt Reena Kher, Advocate, for the appellant; Coram:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial), Date of hearing/decision: 12th March, 2009 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per P.K. Das:
Revenue filed this appeal against order-in-appeal No. 07/RPR-II/2007 dated 24.1.2007 whereby adjudication order was set aside.
2. Learned D.R. submits that in this case SAIL, BSP, Bhilai paid the duty @ 8% adv. Subsequently, another manufacturer ABS Steel Limited, Bhilai credited the said amount and cleared the same goods to D.M. Engineering Limited who are trader on payment of duty @ 12% adv. The respondents received the goods from D.M. Engineering Ltd. on the basis of duty paying documents. He submits that the respondents availed credit of duty @ 12% advalorem instead of 8% which was paid by SAIL. So, the original authority rightly denied the credit of the differential amount.
3. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that on the identical issue this Tribunal in the case of Raj Kesari Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2008 (228) ELT 466 (Tri.-Del.) held that assessment by jurisdictional officer of input supplier not challengeable by jurisdictional authorities of final product manufacturer. She submits that in identical situation in the case of Raj Kesari Electrodes (supra) allowed the credit of 12% advalorem. She also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Guntur, reported in 2006 (206) ELT 533 (Tri.-Bang.).
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) held that credit can be taken on the basis of duty paying documents. In the present case the respondents availed credit on the duty paid by the input supplier. Therefore, the present case is fully covered by the decision in the case of Raj Kesari Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In view of that, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (P.K. DAS) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) RK