Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.3M Electro & Communication India ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/402/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.39/2007 (P) dated 21.03.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s.3M Electro & Communication India Pvt. Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
Respondent
Appearance :
Shri R. Parthasarathy, Cons. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 24.08.2009 Date of decision : 24.08.2009 Final Order No.____________ The authorities below have denied credit on unutilised inputs written off in the assessees books of accounts, although such inputs were still available in the factory and not disposed of.
2. I have heard both sides. I agree with the assessees that credit is admissible when the goods are physically available even though they have been written off and unutilised in the light of the Tribunals decisions in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs Commissioner [2002 (50) R.L.T.208 CEGAT)], AUDCO India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2005 (184) E.L.T. 77 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore Vs Kinetic Motors Co. Ltd. [2005 (183) E.L.T. 300 (Tri.-Del.)], Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam [2005 (191) E.L.T. 724 (Tri.-Bang.)] and recent decisions in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs Fairfield Atlas Ltd. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 511 (Tri.-Mumbai)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II Vs Ingersoil Rand (India) Ltd. [2009 (235) E.L.T. 142 (Tri.-Ahmd.)].
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 24-08-2009 ??
??
??
??
1 4