Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T. Dehradun vs M/S. Khurana Brothers on 5 January, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II Appeal No. E/54203/2015-EX(SM) [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. DDN/EXCUS/000/AP/PL-I/147/2015 dated 31.07.2015, all by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Dehradun]. For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? C.C.E. & S.T. Dehradun .Appellants Vs. M/s. Khurana Brothers .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri M.R. Singh, DR for the Appellant Shri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing: 05.01.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 50008/2016-EX(SM) Per Ashok Jindal:
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The facts of the case are that the respondent is manufacturer of excisable goods and they have procured raw material on the strength of invoices issued by the supplier and took Cenvat Credit on the strength of the invoices. Some of the invoices have mention of the residential address of one of the partner and the respondent firm, in one of the invoices (on which Cenvat Credit was taken) the address was mentioned of their earlier factory instead of present address of the respondent. Revenue is of the view that as the address on which invoices have been issued is not a correct address as per Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Therefore, respondent is not entitled to have Cenvat Credit.
4. I have gone through the impugned order wherein explanation for the contravention of the provision of the Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 has been explained by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) and who has after examining the orders observed as follows:
5. I have observed that it is not in dispute that respondent has not received the goods against the strength of these invoices. In these circumstances, I do agree with the observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (A) by allowing Cenvat Credit in invoice in question.
6. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/54203/2015-EX(SM)