Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Alpha Drugs India Ltd vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 25 March, 2010
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-III Date of hearing/decision: 25.3.2010 Central Excise Appeal No.2668 of 2007-SM Arising out of the order in appeal No.222/CE/CHD/2007 dated 4.7.07 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise , Chandigarh. For Approval and Signature: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, 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? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 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 Alpha Drugs India Ltd. Appellant Vs. C.C.E., Chandigarh Respondent
Appearance:
None for the appellant Shri S.K. Bhaskar, Authorized Departmental Representative (JDR) for the Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Oral Order No.____________________ Per M. Veeraiyan:
This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 222/CE/CHD/2007 dated 4.7.07.
2. None appears for the appellant in spite of notice. On earlier occasions on 28.1.2010 and on 10.12.09 also, the appellant was not represented. Heard the learned DR and perused the records.
3. The Adjudicating Authority has disallowed the Cenvat Credit of Rs.28,343/- and Rs.4800/- on the items namely, Precelain tiles, wall glass lamp, FLO/WPPBS light fittings and postgo, non toxic bird detterent get holding that these items are neither capital goods nor input. The CENVAT credit of Rs.13,517/- has also been disallowed on UPS system and part thereof holding that computer used in the office is not eligible for CENVAT credit. After going through the case records the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Rs.46660/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.46660/- upon the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority.
4. I find that there are detailed reasoning given by the adjudicating authority for disallowing credit in respect of the items mentioned therein. Perusal of grounds of appeal does not indicate any material which can assail the decision of the lower authorities. However, it is clearly an issue involving interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and therefore, does not warrant penalty.
5. In view of the above, the demand of duty and interest is upheld and the penaly is set aside.
6. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms.
(M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) scd/ 3