Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Pondicherry vs M/S. Kernal Technologies Ltd on 22 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/83/2006
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal 112/05 (P) dated 24.11.05 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature
Honble Shri P. KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical)
_______________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? ____________________________________________
CCE, Pondicherry : Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Kernal Technologies Ltd., : Respondent
Appearance Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the appellant None for the respondent.
CORAM Shri P. KARTHIKEYAN, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 22.05.08 Date of decision : 22.05.08 Final Order No.________/2008 This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) . Vide Order-in-Appeal No. 112/05 (P) dated 24.11.05, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order of the original authority denying credit of Rs. 21,539.20 relating to inputs received during 9/96 to 11/96. The credit had been availed on the strength of a dealers invoice. The invoice did not contain the address or whereabouts of the supplier. In the absence of these details, the authenticity of payment of excise duty could not be verified. The assessee had submitted before the original authority that the supplier was not traceable. Following the decision of the CEGAT in Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur reported in 1998 (103) ELT 77 (Tri.), the Commissioner(A) held that the absence of address and whereabouts of the supplier had to be overlooked as long as the revenue was not trying to recover the duty involved from the original manufacturer. He found that in the Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd. (supra) case, the absence of pre-printed serial number which was a mandatory requirement was held to be an inadequate ground to deny Cenvat Credit.
2. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, the main ground taken is that the party could not produce the details of the manufacturer/supplier of the inputs. Also, absence of details of debits in the RG 23 D Part-II Register was not a minor omission. It was a serious infirmity. It is also submitted that the impugned credit was not admissible as the assessee had not obtained the relevant particulars even after being given sufficient opportunity for the purpose in remand by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Heard the Ld. JDR for the appellant. Nobody appeared representing the respondents despite notice. Nor is there any request for adjournment. The appeal is taken up for disposal.
4. There is no dispute that the assessee had taken the credit on the strength of dealers invoice which did not carry the essential particulars of the manufacturer or the source of credit. Even during the denovo proceedings ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee failed to produce the relevant particulars or proof of payment of duty on the inputs involved. The invoice did not carry the details of debit in the RG 23 D Part II register of dealer which the assessee availed as credit. It assumed importance in the absence of details of the manufacturer reflected in the invoice. From the records it is seen that the assessee had admitted that the supplier was not traceable. In the circumstances, it has to be held that the impugned credit of Rs. 21,539.20 was availed by the respondents without the strength of proper prescribed duty paying documents. I find that the Commissioners reliance of Indian Hume Pipes Co. Ltd. (supra) was mis-placed. It was a case where only the preprinted Sl.No. was missing and the department was not handicapped from verifying the genuiness of duty payment, claim for credit of which was disputed in that case. In the circumstances, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) modifying the order of the original authority relating to admissibility of credit of Rs. 21,539.20 is held to be not sustainable. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) MEMBER (T) BB 2