Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd on 21 January, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/16/06 & E/218/06
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.73/2005 (M-III) dated 30.9.2005 and OIA No.116/2005 (M-III) dt. 14.12.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Mr. P.KARTHIKEYAN, 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise
Chennai III & Chennai I
Appellant/s
Versus
Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri N.J.Kumaresh, SDR Shri A.S.Monappa, Advocate For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 21.1.2009 Date of decision : 21.1.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in these appeals is whether CENVAT credit can be denied to the respondents for the period in dispute on the ground that there is shortage of inputs covered by relevant invoices vis-`-vis weighment slips.
2. We find that learned Single Member of the Tribunal, while hearing these appeals, has noted that there are conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, cited both by the DR as well as the counsel for the respondents. The relevant extract of learned Single Members order is reproduced herein below :-
In these appeals of the Revenue, the short question arising for consideration is whether CENVAT credit can be denied to the respondents for the period of dispute on the ground that there was a shortage of inputs covered by the relevant invoices vis-`-vis weighment slips. The learned SDR has relied on the following decisions of the West Zonal Bench (Mumbai):-
(i) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [1999 (113) E.L.T.331 (Tribunal)].
(ii) Mukund Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2002 (150) E.L.T. 168 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
In these cases, it was held by the Division Bench that any quantity of inputs not physically received in factory was not eligible for MODVAT credit. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has claimed support from the following decisions of the Tribunal :
(i) Neera Enterprises Vs Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [1998 (104) E.L.T. 382 (Tribunal)].
(ii) Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad Vs Sipta Coated Steel Ltd. [2000 (125) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal)].
(iii) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot [2003 (158) E.L.T. 378 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
(iv) Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III [2004 (167) E.L.T. 359 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
(v) Gharda Chemicals Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2004 (176) E.L.T. 296 (Tri.-Mumbai)].
In these cases, it was held to the contrary. One of the decisions cited by the learned counsel was given by a Division Bench (West Zonal Bench, Mumbai).
3. In view of the above, the issue requires to be resolved by a Larger Bench. We direct the papers to be placed before the Honble President for constituting a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2