Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Alstom Projects India Ltd vs Cce-Bolpur on 28 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.EA-664/12
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.186/Bol/12 dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-III) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, 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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
M/s.Alstom Projects India Ltd.
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE-BOLPUR
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Miss Satabdi Chatterjee, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Revenue (s) CORAM:
Honble Dr. D.M. Misra, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing/Decision :- 28.8.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 28.8.2015 ORDER NO.FO/A/75457/2015 Per Dr. D.M. Misra.
1. This Appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.186/Bol/12 dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-III) of Central Excise, Kolkata.
2. Miss Satabdi Chatterjee, ld.Adv. for the applicant submits that during the period 2002-03, 2003-04 the applicant had availed CENVAT Credit on various inputs received in their factory to be used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. Two Demand Notices dt. 05.03.2007 & 19.05.2007, were issued to them for recovery of CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,36,409/- alleging non-use of inputs as the same were written off from their books of accounts. She submits that on adjudication of Notice dt. 19.05.2007 the demand was confirmed and equivalent penalty was imposed by the Asst. Commissioner by Order dt.31.12.2007. She submits that show cause notice dt. 05.03.2007 issued on similar ground for the same period has been adjudicated and dropped by the Addl. Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order dt.10.12.2010.
3. Defending the Appellant, she submits that there was no writing off of the stock of inputs as alleged; it was only book adjustment of their inventory during the course of preparation of their trial balance. She has categorically submitted that the said stock of inputs had never been written off from the records nor cleared from the factory without payment of duty. In support of her contention, she placed the trial balance sheet along with Chartered Accountant Certificate.
4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue fairly accepts that demand issued on the same ground has been dropped by the Addl.Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur. However, to co-relate facts between these two show cause notices, he submits that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority.
5. I find that the demand has been confirmed against the appellant solely on the ground that the inputs had been written off from their books of account and hence being not used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products, therefore, not eligible to credit. The ld.Adv. for the appellant challenged the very basis of the demand submitting that the inputs have never been written off from their books of accounts and it was only adjustment of inventory in their trial balance. Apparently I find that the Addl. Commissioner on the same facts has dropped the demand notice. However, since there is no definite co-relation between the facts of both Notices, even though the credit amount and the period is same, it is prudent to remand the case to the adjudicating authority for verification of the said facts. For this limited purpose, the case is remitted to the adjudicating authority, who, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, will decide the case accordingly. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) SD/ (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm 3 Appeal No.EA-664/12