Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 22 May, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(81)ECC805
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. Issue relates to re-credit of modvat credit. Shri Nagaraj appearing for the appellants submitted that at the first instance the modvat credit was debited in RG-23A. On instructions from the Department same amount was debited in PLA. In view of this mistake the party took credit whatever the amount which was debited in RG-23A. The claim of taking modvat credit was rejected on the ground there was no prior permission. According to the Revenue, the party took credit on suo-motto without seeking prior permission or alternatively for having not claimed refund of duty is respect of the reversed modvat credit appeal's to be not justified and legal.
2. Shri Nagaraj submitted that effect of taking re-credit, was duly intimated to the Department. In this context, he drew my attention to the letter dtd. 3.1.95 intimating about taking re-credit to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Hubli.
3. Shri Narasimha Murthy, appearing for the Revenue justified the action of the Department since prior permission was not taken before taking re-credit.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The Ld. Counsel in support of his contention relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Indo-American Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Bolpur as well as TELCO v. CCE, Jamshedpur 2001 (138) ELT 1132. In the case of T.E.L.C.O. it was held that "Department's objections disallowing credit for parts and accessories only technical and revenue neutral as explained in precedent judgment subsequent judgments following it." This view was followed in the case of Indo-American Electricals Ltd. wherein it was held that "re-crediting of the amount cannot be denied only on the ground of non-seeking of the permission of the Assistant Commissioner." In the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the letter about the intimation of taking credit was duly submitted by the party. I do not find any justification in denying the credit. In the view I have taken, the contention of the appellants is accepted and in the result appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.