Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 May, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.E/18/03
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.143/2002 (M-II) dated 21.10.2002 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? :
Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant/s
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate Shri R.P.Meena, SDR For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Mr. P. Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 22.5.2009 Date of decision : 22.5.2009 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The appellants herein took credit of differential duty on the basis of a certificate issued by the Customs Appraiser. The taking of credit was objected to on the ground that the certificate was not specifically prescribed as an eligible document for the purpose of availing credit. The demand was, therefore, confirmed by disallowing the credit taken and penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed, by the Asst. Commissioner whose order was entirely upheld by the lower appellate authority. Hence this appeal.
2. We have heard both sides and hold that the assessees are eligible to take credit on the strength of the certificate issued by the Customs Appraiser, in the light of the orders of the Tribunal in Bell Ceramics Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & C.Ex., 2003 (153) ELT 333 which was followed in Shriram Foundry Ltd. Vs CCE Pune, 2004 (175) ELT 661 holding that in the absence of any other dispute relating to the duty paid nature of the inputs, receipt of the inputs in the factory of the assessees etc. credit cannot be denied only on the ground that the document on the strength of which it was taken was not a prescribed document for the purpose of availment of credit. Following the ratio of the above decisions, cited by ld. counsel for the appellants, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, due to the appellants in accordance with law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(P.KARTHIKEYAN) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
MEMBER (T) VICE-PRESIDENT
gs
1
2