Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Pratap Wires (India) Pvt. Ltd on 21 September, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 DIVISION BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/3418/2006-Ex(DB) With E/Co/263/2006 [Arising out of the OIA No.633/CE/CHD/2006 dated 25.07.2006 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh) Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.09.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes CCE, Chandigarh Appellant Vs. M/s. Pratap Wires (India) Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri. Harvinder Singh, AR for the appellant Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM:Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO.: 61383/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL Revenue is in appeal. The Respondent has also filed cross objection.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of steel wires. They were availing the cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs use in or in relation to the manufacture of their final product. The respondents were located in the state of H.P and expanded their installed capacity to the extent of more than 25% and opted for exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 w.e.f 12.01.2005. The said notification provides for exemption from payment of duty to clearances made by the units satisfying the provisions of said Notification. On the date of opting for the said notifications, the respondent had certain final product lying in stocks which were manufactured out of inputs on which cenvat credit was availed at the time of receipt of such inputs. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent to demand duty on account of cenvat credit taken on the inputs lying as such/contained in the semi-finished goods/finished goods in stock on 12.01.2005. The matter was adjudicated. The adjudicating authority denied order and demanded the duty by denying Cenvat Credit. The respondent filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (A) who set aside the adjudication order. Aggrieved from the said order, the Revenue is before us.
3. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
4. The short issue involved the matter is that whether at the time of opting from exemption and Notification No. 50/2003-CE. The Respondent were required to reverse cenvat credit lying in their cenvat credit account lying un-utilised or not?
5. We find that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Tafe Ltd. reported in 2006 (72) RLT 435 and in CCE Vs. Venugopal Fruit Processed Inds Ltd. & Others reported in 2006 (74) RLT 615, wherein this Tribunal after taking note of various judgements and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court & Larger Bench of this Tribunal held that credit is not recoverable in respect of the inputs as such in stocks or contained in the semi finished/finished goods. The said view has been taken by the Ld. Commissioner (A) in the impugned order.
Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection is also disposed off in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Devender Singh) ( Ashok Jindal)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
rt
1
E/3418/2006 with E/co/263/2006
CCE, Chandigarh
Vs.
M/s Pratap Wires (India) Pvt. Ltd.