Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T. Udaipur vs M/S Jain Grani Marmo Pvt. Ltd on 22 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/53440/2015-Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 389(SLM)CE/JPR/2015 dated 02/07/2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeal) Jaipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
C.C.E. & S.T. Udaipur ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s Jain Grani Marmo Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar (DR) for the Appellant Mr. Rahul Tangri (Advocate) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 22.03.2016 Final Order No. 53154/2016 Per S. K. Mohanty:
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 2.7.2015 passed by the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent herein is a 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of marble slabs. During the disputed period, the respondent had sent marble blocks for conversion to marble slabs to its job workers. Upon completion of the job work activities, the suppliers have sent back the marble slabs to the respondent on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. On the basis of the invoices issued by the job workers, the Respondent took cenvat credit of Central Excise duty indicated therein. Taking of Cenvat Credit was denied by the Central Excise Department on the ground that job workers were not liable to pay the duty in terms of notification No. 214/86 dated 25.3.1986. Show Cause proceedings initiated against the Respondent were dropped in the adjudication order dated 11.10.2013. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 has upheld the adjudication order. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
3. The job workers involved in this case are duly registered with the Central Excise Department and on clearance of the marble slabs to the Respondent have paid Central Excise duty. Since the job workers have issued the Central Excise invoice indicating payment of Central Excise duty, taking of cenvat credit of such duty by the Respondent is in conformity with the cenvat statute. Since payment of duty by the job worker has been accepted by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities, the same cannot be questioned by the authorities below at the recipients end for denying the cenvat credit. In this context, I rely on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of MDS Switchgear 2008 (229) ELT 485 SC, wherein it has been held that quantum of duty already determined by Jurisdictional Officers of suppliers unit cannot be contested or challenged by officers in charge of recipient unit. Since taking of cenvat credit by the respondent is in conformity with Rule 3, read with Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 3 | Page E/53440/2015-Ex[SM]