Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
C.C.E., Coimbatore vs M/S. Chemplast on 11 April, 2001
ORDER
Shri SL Peeran (Oral)
1. The Revenue has challenged the correctness of the order in Appeal No. 179/98-(CBE) dated 18.12.98 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which he set aside the order in original passed by the Assistant Commissioner by order No. 276/95 dated 30.11.95 denying the Modvat credit of duty paid superior kerosene during the month of February 1995 to the extent of Rs 2,31,385.00. The assessee had claimed the benefit of Modvat Credit on the basis of the documents and certificate issued by he Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, the dealer of the said product. They had obtained certificate in turn from the Cochin Refinery and the same had been verified and certified by the Jurisdictional Supdt of Central Excise. The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 3 of his order has given detailed reason for allowing Modvat Credit on the basis of the documents issued by the dealer. The said para 3 is extracted hereunder:
"1. I have gone through carefully the facts of the case and the submissions made by the applicant. It is not disputed that the certificate showing payment of differential duty was issued by M/s Cochin Refinery Ltd, which was duly verified and certified by the Supdt of Central Excise of the concerned range. Therefore, based on the certificate, credit of differential duty should have been allowed by the lower authority. As the goods were routed through M/s IOC, a Government of India Undertaking, the certificate issued by them is a valid duty paying document. In this connection I rely upon the Tribunal order in the case of Agarwal Metal - 1996 (81) ELT 654) wherein it was held that the certificate issued by Public Sector Undertaking/canalising agencies like MMTC/STC are to be treated as duty paying documents and therefore, Modvat credit taken by the appellant was sustainable. The same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Ecko Cables Pvt Ltd (1994 (72) ELT 290) and in the case of Devidayal and Mahendra Corpon. (1193 (75) ELT 659. Relying on the above case laws, I hold that as the differential duty paid by M/s Cochin Refinery Ltd, was duly certified and verified by the Supdt of C. Ex and also by M/s IOC, the lower authority was not correct in disallowing the said credit"
2. The revenue state that the Modvat credit cannot be extended on the documents issued by Public Sector Undertaking in terms of Notification No. 16/94 CE(NT) dated 30.3.94 which prescribes the documents and the present document are not applicable. They also state that the case laws quoted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was issued prior to the period of issue of the Notification.
3. Shri S.Kannan, learned DR submits that there is no correlation between the documents and the item on which Modvat Credit has been utilized and the ratio of the judgements is distinguishable.
4. The Anand, learned Counsel for the assessee on the other hand submits that the case laws settle the issue and no grounds have been made out in the appeal of the Revenue as to how the same would not apply after the issue of the Notification. He submits that the Notification does not take away the effect of the documents issued by the Public Sector Undertaking. The subsequent judgements of the Tribunal also confirms the same.
5. On consideration of the submissions, I notice that there is lot of force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the judgements of the Tribunal as well as Trade notice No. F/267/17/88-CX dt. 19.2.88 that the certificate issued by a Public Sector Undertaking certifying the duty paid character of the goods are valid documents for the purpose of availing the credit of duty. Supdt of Central Excise of the concerned Range has also verified and certified about the item utilized by the respondents. the Tribunal has held in the cited judgements in the Commissioner (Appeals)' order that Modvat Credit cannot be denied on the documents issued by the IOC and Cochin Refinery Ltd. There is no ground made out in the Revenue appeal except to say that the judgements are distinguishable. These judgements have binding force and in terms of judicial discipline, Single Member is required to follow the ratio of the Tribunal judgements. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the Revenue appeal and the same is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)