Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd vs Cce Mumbai Iii on 29 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/86043/17
(Arising out Order-in- Appeal No. PK/22/M-III/2017 dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
CCE Mumbai III
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S. J. Vyas, Advocate for the appellant Shri D.S. Chauhan, Supdt. (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 27.10.2017 Date of decision : 29.11.2017 O R D E R No: ..
Per: Raju This appeal has been filed by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. against demand of duty in respect of debit notes issued by their principal.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that demand has been confirmed on account of variation in consumption in manufacture of biscuit. The appellants were manufacturing biscuit for their principal, Britannia. Their principal had issued certain debit note to the appellants on account of variation in the consumption of inputs in the manufacture of biscuits. He argued that identical matter has been decided by the Tribunal vide Order no. A/85548/17/SMB dated 27.01.2017 .
3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions.
5. I find that Tribunal in their own case on identical issue has decided the matter vide order dated 27.01.2017 by observing as follows:-
4. I have considered the submission made by both sides. I find that the department has demanded the cenvat credit only on the basis of debit notes raised by Britannia Industries Ltd. to the appellant on account of variation in the consumption. That does not show that the appellant has neither received the input nor diverted outside the factory. No such verification was carried out by the department. In such situation, the fact remains that the appellant have received entire inputs on payment of duty from their principal. Either the input must be lying in the factory or same has been used in the production but only as per input output ratio the principal has assumed that there is a consumption variation and accordingly, the debit notes were raised. Therefore in the absence of evidence that the input was not received in the factory or the same after receipt cleared from the factory the cenvat credit cannot be denied.
6. Relying on the aforesaid order, the appeal is allowed.
(Pronounced in Court on ..............................) (Raju) Member (Technical) //SR
- 3 -
E/86043/17