Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rishab Spinnng Mills Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh-I on 2 August, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/56152/2013-(DB) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.298/CE/Appl/Ldh/12 dt.6.12.12 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) Date of Hearing/Decision: 02.08.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes M/s. Rishab Spinnng Mills Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I Respondent
Appearance Shri Surjit Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant Shri Atul Handa, Ld. A.R for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO. 61021/2016 Per : B.RAVICHANDRAN The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 6.12.2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh-I disallowing the cenvat credit availed by the appellant on various capital goods imported by them.
2. The brief facts of the case relevant to the present appeal are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn, acrylic yarn and polyester yarn liable to Central Excise duty. They were availing cenvat credit on various inpouts and capital goods. They had imported various capital goods against the Target Plus Scheme and whole of the duty payable on such import was debited from the Duty Credit Certificate issued under Notification No.32/2005-Cus dated 8.4.2005. They have availed cenvat credit of Rs.33,76,043/- on such import. The Revenue entertained a view that in terms of said Customs Notification, the appellant has to furnish a installation certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise authority and in the absence of such certificate the credit cannot be taken. Further import was made by M/s.Nahar Exports Ltd. and not by appellant and hence the credit was not admissible to them. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant concluded with denial of credit and imposition of penalties. On appeal, by the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the original order. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before us.
3. We have heard both sides and perused the records.
4. The credit on capital goods was denied to the appellant on two grounds: First is that in terms of Notification No.32/2005-Cus dated 8.4.2005 an installation certificate has to be submitted within six months of date of import. The appellant failed to submit the certificate in time. Second ground is that import document shows importer as M/s.Nahar Exports Ltd. Hence the appellant is not eligible for credit. On perusal of the order of the lower authorities, we find that the condition as per Notification No.32/2005-Cus dated 8.4.2005 is sought to be relied as a reason for denying the credit. We find that in the absence of any reference to the condition in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there is no justification for the view taken by the lower authorities. Further, admittedly, during the course of adjudication itself the appellant submitted attested copy of the certificate dated 22.9.2008 issued by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner wherein the use of capital goods so imported has been satisfied. We find that there is no justification in denying the credit to the appellant for the reason quoted by the lower authorities. The capital goods have suffered duty, have been used in the appellants premises and have been duly installed and used by the appellant. Regarding import document bearing name of M/s.Nahar Export Ltd., we find that the appellants name did figure in many documents alongwith M/s.Nahar Export Ltd., who is proprietor of the appellant . Even in respect of the document where the appellants name figuring, it is settled position of law that as long as the capital goods have used, the duty payment has been satisfied and are to be put to intended use, the credit on the sasme cannot be denied. We find that the appellant is manufacturing unit of M/s.Nahar Export Ltd. who are absolute owner of the appellants firm as proprietor. It is also clear that in all the bills of entry the appellants name alonwith their proprietor M/s.Nahar Export Ltd. is indicated. The goods were actually exported by M/s.Nahar Export Ltd. and in lieu of such export, they were granted certificate under Target Plus Scheme. That various statutory authority like Central Excise, DGFT, the appellant are considered alongwith M/s.Nahar Export Ltd. as the same entity. We find that in the absence of any allegation regarding non receipt of capital goods and the appellants non entitlement of any other ground, the credit on these capital goods received and installed in the appellants preemies cannot be denied. We find no merit in the impugned order and the same is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the open court)
(B. Ravichandran) ( Ashok Jindal)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
mk
1