Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Naihati Jute Mills Company Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
SP-589/11
& Ex. Appeal No.505/11
Arising out of O/A No.93/Kol.III/2011 dated 08.03.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata.
For approval and signature:
DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE 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? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s Naihati Jute Mills Company Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol.III
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri K. Chaudhury, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department CORAM:
DR. D. M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 02. 05. 2014 ORDER NO.FO/A/75189/2014 Per Dr. D. M. Misra :
This is an application for waiver of cenvat credit of Rs.5,00,855/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 57U (6) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. At the outset, the ld.Advocate appearing for the Applicant, has submitted that the issue relates to availment of modvat credit during the period from August, 1995 to February, 1997 on various capital goods. He submits that they have availed modvat credit on the said capital goods in accordance with the law and under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. He submits that the Department has proposed to deny the modvat credit on such capital goods on the ground that in view of the sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R, the value being shown as revenue expenditure in their books of accounts, therefore, they would not be eligible for modvat credit on such capital goods. He submits that this Rule has been amended twice, initially, sub-rule (5) has been amended on 23.07.1996 incorporating therein that there is a bar on availment on the value shown as revenue expenditure, later, a separate sub-rule was inserted as sub-rule (8) on 01.03.1997. He submits that subsequently by retrospective amendment vide Section 149 read with schedule 6 of Finance Act, 2003, the relevant sub-rule has been amended, thereby giving effect to the extent of incorporating a bar for availing modvat credit on capital goods, if the same is claimed as revenue expenditure, has been done away with.
3. The ld. A.R. for the Department, does not dispute about the said retrospective amendment.
4. After hearing both sides, I find that the appeal itself could be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of predeposit and with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for final disposal.
5. I find that the period involved in the present case is from August, 1995 to February, 1997. Undisputedly, during the relevant period, in accordance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 57R and/ or sub-rule (8) of Rule 57R, the assessee, who avails modvat credit on capital goods and claim the value of such capital goods as revenue expenditure, then, they were barred from availing the benefits of modvat credit on the capital goods. I also find that this position has been changed retrospectively by virtue of Section 149 of the Finance Act, 2003. In view of the above retrospective amendment, I do not find any merit in the impugned order and accordingly, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Stay petition is disposed off.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/ (DR. D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mm 3 Ex. Appeal No.505/11