Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce,Chandigarh vs M/S. Gian Casting (P) Ltd on 24 September, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI
Date of Hearing/decision:24/09/2013
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
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
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
authorities?
Excise Appeals Nos.E/448, 449/2011 & E/713/2011-EX (SM)
[(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.157-159/CE/CHD-I/2010 dated 27.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh )]
CCE,Chandigarh Appellants
Versus
M/s. Gian Casting (P) Ltd. Respondent
M/s. A.K. Multimetals (P) Ltd.
M/s.Bansal Alloys & Metals (P) Ltd.
Appearance: Rep. by Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the appellant.
Rep. by Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
Coram: Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Orders Nos.57946-57948/2013 /Dated:24.09.2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The respondent are manufacturers of M.S. Ingots having their factory at Mandi Gobindgarh. During period of dispute, as per their records, they received steel scrap from a registered dealer M/s. Naveen Ispat, Mandi Gobindgarh. On the basis of invoice issued by M/s.Naveen Ispat, cenvat credit of Rs.54,785/-, Rs.39605/- and Rs.79,301/- was availed by Gian Castings (P) Ltd., Shri A.K. Multimetals (P) Ltd., M/s. Bansal Alloys & Metals (P) Ltd. respectively. Department initiated proceedings for recovery of the cenvat credit alongwith interest and imposition of penalties on M/s. Gian Castings, M/s. A.K. Multimetals and M/s. Bansal Alloys and also for imposition of penalty on M/s. Naveen Ispat on the ground that no material was supplied by M/s. Naveen Ispat under the invoices and the goods covered under the invoices were sent to buyers in Khanna city. These proceedings resulted in issue of an adjudication order dated 30.03.2006 passed by Assistant Commissioner by which the above mentioned cenvat credit demands were confirmed against the respondents along with interest and penalties of equal amounts were imposed. On appeals being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order-in-appeal dated 27.10.2010 set aside the Asstt. Commissioners order confirming the cenvat credit demands and imposing penalties. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), these three appeals have been filed by the department.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri R.K. Mishra, ld. Departmental Representative assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and emphasized that though this very issue was decided by the Tribunal in the case of Swastick Steel Works and Others vide Final Order No.1315 A 1322 dated 3.6.2008 and as such, the Tribunals judgement is in favour of the respondent, this judgement was challenged before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the High Court also decided the case in favour of the respondent, but the department has not accepted the decision of the Honble High Court. He also pleaded that octroi receipts of Khanna City indicate that the consignments covered by the invoices issued by M/s. Naveen Ispat to the respondents, had actually been sent to parties in Khanna City and those consignments had not reached respondents. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct.
4. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, pleaded that identical facts and identical issue are involved in the case of Swastick Steel Works (supra) decided by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide judgement reported in 2009 (243) ELT 343 (P&H) wherein Honble High Court has decided this issue in favour of the respondent and this judgement was followed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in subsequent judgement in the case of CCE Vs. Modern Alloys reported in 2010 (258) ELT 364 (P&H). He, therefore, pleaded that there is no merit in the Revenues appeals.
5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. M/s. Naveen Ispat had issued invoices regarding supply of scrap to the respondents on the basis of which the respondents have taken cenvat credit of the amounts mentioned above. The departments contention, however, is that no goods have been received by the respondent and the goods covered under these invoices issued by Naveen Ispat have actually been received by some parties in Khanna City, as there are octroi receipts issued by Khanna City Municipality which are in respect of entry of the consignments with the same description of the goods, truck number and quantity as that shown in the invoices issued by Naveen Ispat. However, it is seen that octroi receipts issued by Khanna City Municipality do not show the consignors name and no inquiry has been conducted with the drivers of the trucks. It is in view of these facts that Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Swatick Steel (supra) and in the case of Modern Alloys (supra) has held that it can not be alleged that the goods covered under the invoices issued by registered dealer to the respondents have not been received by them but have been received in Khanna City. In view of this, I do not find any merit in the Revenues appeals. The same are dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1