Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sanghi Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise-Rajkot on 9 April, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad *****
Appeal No. : E/761,773,774/2012 [ Arising out of OIA-410 and 411/2012/COMMR-A-/RBT/RAJ dtd 12.7.2012 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, RAJKOT ] Sanghi Industries Limited - Appellant(s) Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT Vs Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT Sanghi Industries Limited - Respondent (s) Represented by For Assessee : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For Revenue : Shri G.P. Thomas, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 9/4/2015 ORDER No. 10671-10673/2015 dated 09.04.2015 Per : Mr.P.K. Das, After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the assessee filed appeal against the denial of cenvat credit of Rs 83,853/- on capital goods in the month of March 2006. Revenue filed appeal in respect of admissibility of cenvat credit on Outward Transport Service.
2. Regarding the denial of cenvat credit of Rs 83,853/-, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee have not produced any evidence to substantiate their case that they have not utilised the cenvat credit before filing the refund claim in terms of Notification 39/2001. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that they did not avail the credit. We find that this submission was not taken before lower authorities. In any event, taking into account of the amount involved in this case, we do not find any reason to remand the case. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.
4. Regarding the Revenues appeal, the Learned Authorised Representative submits that they have challenged the decision of the Honble Gujarat High Court on the identical issue before Honble Supreme Court. He further submits that the Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Visuvious Ltd - 2013.TIOL.1038 (HC Calcatta) decided in favour of the Revenue. We find that the Honble Calcatta High Court had granted interim st