Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Murli Agro Products Ltd vs Cce Nagpur on 11 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/2165/10
IN APPEAL NO. E/2006/10 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/259/NGP/2010 dated 16.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur.
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
Murli Agro Products Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Nagpur
Respondent
Appearance Ms. Purnia Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for Appellant Ms. D.M. Durando, Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 11.05.2012 Date of Decision : 11.05.2012 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal along with an application for stay against the impugned order wherein the CENVAT credit availed by them on the capital goods was denied on the ground that the said capital goods have not been received by them in their factory.
2. The issue is that whether the main capital goods have been received by the appellants in their factory or not and whether the capital goods have been installed on the machine and used within the factory of production or not.
3. As the issue involved is in a narrow compass, after granting waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of the demands, the appeal is taken up for disposal.
4. It is the appellants case that their CENVAT credit on inputs has been denied without ascertaining (on the basis of the invoices), that the capital goods have not been received in the factory and installed in the factory or not. This fact can only be ascertained by the departmental officers by visiting the factory of the appellant. Therefore, the matter needs examination at the end of the adjudicating authority.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to ascertain whether the capital goods are received and installed in the factory of the appellant or not. If it is find that the capital goods are installed in the factory of the appellant, then the appellant shall entitle to take CENVAT credit for the same.
6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3