Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Coimbatore Murugan Mills on 3 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(86)ECC627, 2003(160)ELT825(TRI-CHENNAI)
JUDGMENT Archana Wadhwa, J.
1. Revenue being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he had extended the benefit of Modvat credit availed by the appellants on the basis of the endorsed invoices issued by the sister unit, M/s. Pioneer Spinners has filed the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ld. DR, Shri C. Mani for the Revenue and Ld. Counsel Shri Jagadeesan for the Respondents.
3. It is seen that the appellant as also M/s. Pioneer Spinners are sister units of M/s. National Textile Corporation Ltd. M/s. Pioneer Spinners received the consignments of inputs and as the same was not required by them, they transferred it to their sister unit i.e. the Respondents herein and endorsed the invoices in their favour, The Respondents availed the benefit of Modvat credit on the basis of the said endorsed invoices. The Revenue objection is that such endorsed invoices are not the proper documents for the purpose of Modvat credit. Hence, the proceedings were initiated against them which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority against the Respondents. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order of the lower authority and hence this appeal.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. In normal circumstances, when there is a sale by one assessee to another independent assessee, the endorsed modvatable invoices have been held as not proper documents for the purpose of modvat credit by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Balmer and Lawrie Ltd. However, in the instant case, the situation is different inasmuch as it is a transfer of the consignments of the inputs by two sister concerns of the same parent unit namely National Textile Corporation Ltd. There is no sale between the two units. Hence, the ratio of the Larger Bench decision will not be applicable. Revenue has not doubted nor disputed that the consignments of the inputs in question was duty paid and was duly received in the Respondent's factory and utilised in the manufacture of their final product which was cleared on payment of duty. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly we reject the Revenue appeal.