Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S.Vvf Ltd.....Opponent(S) on 3 December, 2015
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Mohinder Pal
O/TAXAP/934/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 934 of 2015
==========================================================
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE,CUSTOMS AND SERVICE-
TAX,VALSAD COMMISSIONERATE....Appellant(s)
Versus
M/S.VVF LTD.....Opponent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG H BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL
Date : 03/12/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) dated 27.03.2015. Following question is presented for our consideration:
"(a) Whether the Ld. CESTAT is justified in the eye of law, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in setting aside the demand along with interest and penalty and holding that the CENVAT Credit taken by the assessee cannot be denied on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by their sister unit despite the existence of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts and despite wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on supplementary invoice issued in contravention of Rule 9 (1)(b) Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 08 01:36:59 IST 2015 O/TAXAP/934/2015 ORDER of CENVAT Rules, 2004 ?"
2. Upon perusal of the order under challenge, it appears that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the assessee had received goods from its sister concern. The Tribunal, therefore, believed that there cannot be any sale and it was a stock transfer. The Tribunal relied on Rule 9 (1)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore reported in 2010 (258) ELT 62 and held and observed as under:
"6. In the present case, I find that the Department has not disputed the transaction between the Appellant and its sister unit. It is noted that the differential duty was paid for price of escalation, which was paid by sister unit. Hence, the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd. (supra) would be applicable in the present case. As the decision of Hon'ble High Court is directly on the issue, the decision of Mumbai Tribunal relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative is not applicable.
7. In view of the above discussion, CENVAT Credit taken by the Appellant on the strength of supplementary invoice issued by their sister unit cannot be denied and demand of duty along with interest and penalty cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed."
3. We see no error in the decision of the Tribunal. No question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.)
Page 2 of 3
HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 08 01:36:59 IST 2015
O/TAXAP/934/2015 ORDER
(MOHINDER PAL, J.)
KMGThilake)
Page 3 of 3
HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Tue Dec 08 01:36:59 IST 2015