Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S. Metro Tyres Ltd on 12 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 1475/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.64/CE/LDH/2011 Dated 28.02.2011 passed by CCE, Ludhiana]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CCE, Ludhiana Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Metro Tyres Ltd. Respondents
Appearance:
Shri A.K. Jain, DR for the Appellant Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for the Respondent Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Date of Hearing: 12.07.2013 FINAL ORDER NO._57062/2013_ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri A.K. Jain, learned AR appearing for the revenue and Shri Vikrant Kackria appearing for the respondent.
2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availment of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on the inputs, based upon the invoices which were issued in the respondent name but address of their other units was mentioned. On receipt of the goods the other unit endorsed the invoices in name of the Respondent inasmuch as the inputs were meant for the Respondents. Accordingly Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confirmation of demand against them by holding that the respondents were entitled the take the credit.
3. I find that the only dispute in the present appeal is that the invoices, on the basis of which the present respondent has taken the credit was showing the different address i.e. the address of the other units of the same respondent. The contention of the learned advocate is that admittedly invoices were in the name of the Respondent, who has four units. The supplier of the raw materials wrong by showed the address of another unit of the respondent. On the receipt of the invoices by the another, unit the same was duty endorsed to the correct unit of the Respondent. I further note that there is no dispute about duty paid character of the inputs, their receipt by the respondent and utilization in the manufacture of the final product, which were cleared on payment of duty. Tribunal in the case of Plastic products Engg. Co. Vs, CCE, Ahmedabad reported in [2009(248) ELT 859(Tri.-Ahmd)] has held that wrong communication of name and address of the unit, by the supplier, who has sent the raw material to the correct unit, will not result in denial of credit.
4. Inasmuch as the issue stands covered by the above referred decision of the Tribunal, I find no reason to interfere in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounce in the open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
2