Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rail Tech vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 322 & 516 of 2011- ST[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 276/CE/Ldh/10 dated 29.11.2010 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
Excise Appeal No. 322 of 2011- Ex [SM]
M/s. Rail Tech Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent, Ludhiana
Excise Appeal No. 516 of 2011- Ex[SM] Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants Ludhiana Vs. M/s. Rail Tech Respondent Appearance:
Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri U K Srivastava, DR for the Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.12.2013
Date of decision: 28.01.2014
ORDER NO. FO/ A 50255-50256 /2014-Ex(SM)
Per Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants is engaged in the manufacture of railway parts falling under Chapter 86 of Central Excise and Tariff Act. The goods were being supplied by them exclusively to the railways.
2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs so received by them. It is seen that the appellants took excess credit of Rs. 1,81,206/-. The said credit was availed by them by adopting the assessable value instead of duty paid. The appellants admitted their mistake and on being pointed out by the Revenue, they reversed the credit along with interest of Rs. 14,800/-.
3. In the above scenario, it is the contention of the appellant that no penalty should be imposed upon them inasmuch as the mistake was an inadvertent error on the part of the person maintaining the records.
4. I agree with the above contention oft the appellants. Admittedly, taking credit equivalent to the value of the goods in respect of duty of excise reflected in the said invoice can be said to be a mistake only.
5. Inasmuch as the said mistake is liable to be detected either by the Central Excise Officers or by the Audit, the appellant have already suffered by payment of interest to the extent of Rs.14,800/-As such, I set aside the imposition of penalty on the above count.
6. It is further seen that lower authorities have denied Cenvat credit of Rs.48,683/- availed by the appellant on the basis of invoice no. 9039 dated 4.5.2007 issued by the input supplier. Neither is it clear from the impugned order or from the memo of appeal as to why the said credit has been held to inadmissible. The lower authorities have simplicitor observed that same is excess Cenvat credit availed by the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant has contended in their memo of appeal that credit against the said invoice was correctly taken and the Revenue has not considered the amount of ACD paid at the time of import. In the absence of any clarity on the above issue, I set aside the impugned order to that extent and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision on the said disputed quantum of Rs. 48,683/- after giving an opportunity to the appellant to put forth their case.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed and party remanded.
( pronounced in the open court on )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2