Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 16 April, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 485-490 of 2005-EX[DB] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 171-176/RPR-II/2004 dated 18.08.04 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Raipur Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Sneha Mainwal, Advocate for the Appellants Shri N. Pathak, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision : 16.04.2013 ORDER NO ./ FO 56186-56191/2013-Ex(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
All the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. For better appreciation, we reproduce the chart submitted by learned advocate detailing various items and the reasons for denial of Cenvat credit.
S. No. GROUNDS ON WHICH CREDIT WAS DISALLOWED AMOUNT (IN Rs.) RELEVANT CASE LAWS
1. Non-production of duty paying document i.e. Invoice No. 228 dated 25.02.2000. (No dispute regarding the duty paid nature and receipt of goods in the factory). 1,425/-
? SAIL V CCE, Raipur [Final Order No. A/55727/2013-EX [DB] dated 20.02.2013] ? SAIL V CCE, Raipur [2008 (227) ELT 265 (Tri-Del)]
2. Credit taken on inputs after six months from the date of issue of invoice [Rule 57 G of Central Excise Rules, 1944] 7,82,738/-
3. Declaration not filed under Rule 57 G. (No dispute regarding the duty paid nature and receipt of goods in the factory) 18,81,031/-
? SAIL V CCE, Raipur [Final Order No. A/55727/2013-EX [DB] dated 20.02.2013] ?Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. V. CCE, Meerut [2000 (121) ELT 247 (Tribunal LB)] ? CCE, Chennai v. ITC Ltd. [2008 (224) ELT 226 (Mad)] ? JBM Tools Ltd. V. CCE, Pune [2002 (144) ELT 561 (Tri-Mumbai)] ? CCE, Mangalore V. Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. [2002 (150) ELT 114 (Tri-Bang)] ?SAIL V. CCE, Ranchi [2010 (25) ELT 129 (Tri-Kolkata)] ? TATA Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V. CCE, Jamshedpur [2001 (138) ELT 940 (Tri-Kolkata)]
4. Credit taken on extra copy of Invoice. Non-Production of duplicate copy of invoice [as provided under Rule 57 G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944].
(No dispute regarding the duty paid nature and receipt of goods in the factory) 23,713/-
? Bajaj Tempo Ltd. V CCE, Pune [1999 (106) ELT 145 (Tribunal)] ? Union of India V. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2011 (263) ELT 48 (Chattisgarh)] ? CCE, Chandigarh V. Stelko Strips Ltd. [2010 (255 ELT 397 (P & H)]
5. Credit taken on non-specified duties, such as basic customs duty and special customs duty [Rule 57A of Central Excise Rules, 1944] 93,210/-
6. Excess Credit availed than that shown in the parent invoice. 69,080/-
7. Credit taken on re-issued goods under Rule 173 H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 97,484/-
The amount in question stands reversed by the appellants. The only dispute is that adequate evidence has not yet been submitted in support of such reversal.
8. Discrepancies in Dealers Invoices, such as non-mention of certain details such as manufactures details and invoice no.
(No dispute regarding the duty paid nature and receipt of goods in the factory) 16,59,176/-
? Bajaj Tempo Ltd. V CCE, Pune [1999 (106) ELT 145 (Tribunal)] ? CCE, Ahmedabad V. Satyen Dyes [2001 (134) ELT 655 (Tri-LB)] ? P.S. Hunjan& Brothers V. CCE, Chandigarh.
TOTAL 46,07,857/-
3. As regards S.No. 1 and 2 of the above chart, learned advocate fairly agrees that the credit stand taken in the absence of duty paying documents as also after a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the invoice. As such, same would not be available.
As regards the S.No.3, we find that the only ground of denial of credit is non-filing of declaration. In the appellants own case, as detailed in the chart, the said infirmity has been held to be of a nature so as not to result in denial of credit. Similarly in the case of S.No.4, there is no dispute about the duty paid character of the invoice and their receipt in the appellants factory and further utilization. We accordingly are of the view that denial of credit on the technical ground of non-production of duplicate copy of invoice could not result in denial of credit.
As regards S.No. 5, 6 and 7, learned advocate fairly agrees that the credit would not be available to the appellant.
As regards S.No. 8, we find that credit stand denied on the technical and procedural ground of non-availability of certain particulars in the dealers invoices. Otherwise, there is no dispute about receipt of invoice and their utilization in the final product or duty paid character of the same. The defects pointed out by the Revenue are rectifiable defects and should not be made basis for denial of credit, if availability of same is otherwise not disputed.
4. In view of our foregoing discussions, credit at S.No. 1, 2, 5,6 and 7 are denied and credit in respect of S.No.3, 4 and 8 are allowed. As the issue involved is bonafide dispute on availability of Cenvat credit, we do not deem it fit for imposition of penalty on the appellant. The same is accordingly set aside.
(Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2