Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 12 August, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-,,,,,SM Excise Stay Appn. No.E/S/1642/10-SM in Excise Appeal No.1644/10-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.76/CE/APPL/ALLD/2010 dated 26.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Allahabad, U.P.]. M/s.U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Allahabad Respondent
Present for the Appellant : None Present for the Respondent:Shri.B.L. Soni, S.D.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing/Decision:12.08.2011 ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:________ PER: D.N.PANDA Application for adjournment has been made by the Counsel for the appellant on health ground of his daughter. Looking to the magnitude of demand of Rs.1,12,458.20, it is considered proper not to add to pendency in the Tribunal. When the gravity of the matter was looked into, it appears that the appellant at Lucknow had made some purchase of goods for use thereof in its Unit at Gorakpur, for improper verification of the concerned invoices and no production of original invoice the appellant was denied credit. Similarly in respect of certain invoices the duplicate copies of invoices were stated to be lost for which certain quantum of cenvat credit was inadmissible. The third count of inadmissibility related to sl.No.7 to 10 of the invoices stated by the adjudicating authority at page 6 of his order. Those invoices are recorded to be not in the name of the appellant but in the name of Jaypee Rewa Cement, Satna. Finding that the invoices were not related to the appellant and those were six months old credit was denied. The forth count of disallowance was invoice at Sl.No.11 & 13 as appearing in the adjudication order at page 6. Invoices were although original, credit was denied. In respect of invoice at sl.no.12 which was extra copy was also more than six months old. The authority also found that there was no document in respect of cenvat credit of Rs.134.78
2. When the inadmissibility of cenvat credit was on above grounds appellate authority has passed 17 paged order without referring for enquiry to come to a rational conclusion. Public confidence on law and Courts should not be defeated by literal disposal of appeal. The appellants grievance is to be redressed causing proper enquiry and following due process of law to show that justice is not only done but is seemed to have been imparted.
3. There is no need to speak more for this small amount of demand involved wasting time of Tribunal. Therefore, waiving requirement of pre-deposit, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to conduct fair enquiry at the source of origin of the invoice itself and expose result of the enquiry to the appellant for rebuttal. On the basis of outcome of the rebuttal and the enquiry and taking into law into consideration, the matter is to be put to an end as far as practicable without raising unnecessary disputes and wasting public time and cost. In view of the above, both stay application and appeals are disposed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita