Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Noida vs M/S. Delhi Control Devices Pvt. Ltd on 26 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi ? 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 21.08.2013
Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2013
E/853/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 387/CE/APPL/NOIDA/2010 dated 27.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Noida]
For Approval & Signature:
Hon?ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
CCE, Noida Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Delhi Control Devices Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri R. K. Mishra, AR - for the Appellant
None - for the Respondent
Coram : Hon?ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa Member (Judicial)
Final ORDER NO. 57378/2013
Per Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the Order-in-Original confirming the disallowance of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 2,35,624/- and penalty of identical amount, Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri R. K. Mishra, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and none appeared for the respondents.
2. After considering the submission made by the Learned DR and after going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), I find that the Revenue is seeking the disallowance of Cenvat Credit to the appellants availed by them in respect of invoices issued by the registered dealer M/s. Arihanta Metal Company i.e. AMC Ltd., on the ground that he has shown the purchase of the goods from M/s Aggarwal Metal Works, who were manufacturing only Brass Circles/Brass Strips whereas the goods have been shown to be Brass Sheets. The appellate authority has held as under:-
?The records placed before me viz: the purchase invoices, clearly indicate that the appellant had purchased and received the ?brass sheets? in their factory premises. The non-receipt of the material i.e ?brass sheets?, covered through the invoices in question, has not been proved either through investigation or by dispute by the adjudicating authority. Once the receipt of the goods is proved, the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit on the same could not be denied especially in the view of the fact that the appellant procured the inputs from the registered dealers under the proper duty paying documents. Further, there is no dispute that the appellant had not discharged its contractual liability by making the payment of the invoice price to the registered dealer. The provisions governing the availment of the credit envisage that the assessee, availing the credit, should ensure that the inputs should have suffered duty at the hands of the manufacturer. In the instant case, the appellant has fulfilled the statutory criteria in this regard prior to taking of the credit and there is no contrary evidence to this.?
?Thus, I find that the appellant therefore cannot be asked to go beyond the duty payment document in his hand. The appellant had checked the authenticity of the invoice issued by the registered dealer and the dealer is a registered one. I find that appellant have taken due care while procuring the duty paid inputs. The Cenvat Credit on such inputs cannot be denied simply on the ground that the goods were not the same i.e. being manufactured by M/s Agarwal as mentioned on the invoices.?
3. As such, he has taken note of the purchase invoices and has held in favour of respondents by observing that appellants have received the goods from the registered dealer, Cenvat Credit cannot be disallowed to them.
4. The Revenue?s contention is that the evidence on record reveals that the registered dealer never received the ?brass sheet? inasmuch as M/s Agarwal was not manufacturing the ?brass sheet?. There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only ?brass sheet? and the same stands reflected by the appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them.
5. As such I find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue?s appeal is rejected.
(Order pronounced in the court on 26.08.2013) Archana Wadhwa Member (Judicial) Neha 1