Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Sisco Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 October, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1915 of 2010-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 77/CE/Alld/ 2010 dated 26.3.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals ), Central Excise, Allahabad]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, 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 : No
of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental authorities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. SISCO Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Allahabad
Appearance:
Ms. Jubina, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri G.K. Dixit, AR for the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19.07.2012
Date of decision : 25.10 .2012
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per Archana Wadhwa:
Cenvat credit stand denied to the appellant on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of invoices which are either in the name of their another unit, located in the close vicinity or are not disclosing the address of the appellant or have given the wrong address of their head office.
2. I find that the appellants relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal before Commissioner (Appeals), who has not referred to same on the ground that all the three units are of the same company, similarly named, are located in nearby areas, and as such, in the absence of proper address identification, there is every chance of mis-use of documents. However, I find that the Cenvat credit is available subject to the condition that the use of the inputs is in the appellants final product. If there is no dispute about the fact that other units have also availed credit in respect of same raw materials covered by the same invoices, the denial of credit may not be justified based upon the assumption and presumption. As such, the relevant factor to be examined is receipt and use of raw material in the appellants final products and the second aspect required to be verified is as to whether based upon the same invoices, the other unit has also availed credit or not.
3. On going through the impugned order, I find that lower authorities have not examined the issue from the above angle. As such, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the factual aspect and to redecide the matter in the light of various decisions of the Tribunal, which the appellant may refer to and rely upon in the denovo adjudication.
4. The appeal is, thus allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in the open court on 25.10 .2012)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
3