Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Truwoods Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 February, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/356/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 46/2008 (V-II) CE dated 30/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Appeals), Visakhapatnam.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. 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 M/s. TRUWOODS PVT. LTD. 9-19-56/3, II ND FLOOR, CBM COMPOUND VIP ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs VISAKHAPATNAM-II CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, PORT AREA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530 035. ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Raghavendra.B. Advocate V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & V. SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM BANGALORE - 560 055, KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 05/02/2015 Date of Decision: 05/02/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20245 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellants have been denied the CENVAT credit of Rs.3,67,583/- of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and the Education Cess in respect of the goods imported by one M/s. Anant Promoters and Fiscon Pvt. Ltd., who has sold the goods to the appellant. The ground for denial of the credit is that the bill of entry is in the name of Anant Promoters and has also not been endorsed in favour of the appellant, although the invoice dated 21.3.2006 stands issued by Anant Promoters, selling the goods to the appellant.
2. The Revenues sole objection is that the bill of entry is in the name of Anant Promoters, the same cannot be held to be a proper eligible document for the purpose of availment of credit. Otherwise there is no dispute that the entire consignment imported by Anant Promoters was sold to the appellant. There is a clear finding by the Commissioner (A) that the receipt of goods by the appellant is not an issue either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order. The credit has been reflected by the appellant in their CENVAT account maintained by them and goods have been used in the manufacture of their final products.
3. I find that in the absence of any dispute about the receipt of the inputs, the duty-paid character, and their utilization in the manufacture of the final products which were cleared on payment of duty, denial of credit on the sole ground of the bill of entry not being in the name of the assessee cannot be appreciated. There is plethora of judgments to that effect. One such reference can be made to the Honble Bombay High Courts decision in the case of Marmagoa Steel Ltd. vs. UOI: 2005 (192) E.L.T. 82 (Bom.) which stands confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court reported as UOI vs. Marmagoa Steel Ltd.: 2008 (229) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). In any case, the said defect pointed out by the Revenue is a corrective defect and endorsement can still be obtained by the appellant from the seller.
3.1 In view of the above, I hold in favour of the assessee. Apart from merits of the case, I also find that the demand is hit by limitation. The appellant was reflecting entire credit in their CENVAT account, in which case no suppression can be attributed to them so as to justify the confirmation of demand for a longer period of limitation. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Order pronounced in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3