Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Guntur vs M/S. Aruna Paper Board Mills (P) Ltd on 31 August, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench - SMB
Court I
Date of Hearing:31/08/2012
Date of decision:31/08/2012
Appeal No.E/145/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.30/2009(G) CE dt. 28/10/2009 passed by CCE,C&ST(Appeals), Guntur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial)
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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Guntur
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Aruna Paper Board Mills (P) Ltd.
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Ms. Sabrina Cano, Superintendent(AR) for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member(Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________ This appeal filed by the Department is against grant of CENVAT credit on capital goods to the respondent by the lower appellate authority. The respondent has filed written submissions in support of the appellate Commissioners decision. As required by this Bench, the appellant has filed a compilation of documents including copies of ER1 returns for the period of dispute, copies of invoices on which the CENVAT credit in question was availed and copies of judgments.
2. Examined the records and heard the learned Superintendent(AR). The relevant show-cause notice was issued on 30/12/2008 proposing, inter alia, to deny CENVAT credit of Rs.4,15,797/- to the respondent in respect of MS plates, angles, channels, beams etc. which were claimed to have been used for the fabrication/manufacture of machinery as part of expansion of the plant during the period from September 2006 to December 2007. The notice also demanded interest on duty and proposed penalty. The respondent contested the demand on merits and on the ground of limitation. The adjudicating authority rejected their contentions and confirmed the demand against them and imposed a penalty on them. In an appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner(Appeals) held in their favour on all issues. Hence the present appeal of the Department.
3. On a perusal of the records, I note that it had been duly noted by the original authority that the assessee had been filing periodical returns with relevant invoices. The appellate authority also noted this factual position and rejected the Departments allegation that the assessee had suppressed material facts with intention to evade payment of duty. The documents filed by the learned Superintendent(AR) support this finding of the lower appellate authority. The assessee had been filing returns from month to month indicating therein the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods, inputs etc. The invoices on the basis of which the CENVAT credits were availed were also furnished with these returns. These invoices (copies produced) clearly indicated the correct description of the goods (MS plates, angles, channels etc.) apart from the amount of duty paid thereon. Thus the material facts were duly disclosed to the Department by the assessee. There was no suppression of facts by them, let alone with intention to evade payment of duty.
4. For the above reasons, I reject this appeal of the Department, considering the fact that the show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation without any valid ground.
( Pronounced and dictated in open court ) ( P.G. CHACKO ) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Nr 4