Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd vs Cce, Noida on 8 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT IV
Excise Appeal No.E/52615/2014 EX. [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/ APPL/ 222/ 13-14 dated 25.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, NOIDA]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?
Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, NOIDA Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. G.R. Singh, DR Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.07.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. _______________ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Springs falling under Chapter 73 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants avails cenvat credit of Central Excise Duties paid on various inputs and capital goods used in the factory for manufacture of the finished goods. During the period December 2007 to February 2012, the appellant had taken cenvat credit on the basis of 28 numbers of invoices, which were objected to by the Investigation Wing of the Central Excise Department on the ground that the invoices do not contain the address of the consignee (the factory of the appellant) where the cenvat credit has been taken. The show cause notice issued in this regard was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise vide order dated 25.04.2013, wherein the proposals made therein were dropped and Jurisdictional Deputy /Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise was directed to verify the receipt and accountal of the goods covered under the said disputed invoices. Feeling aggrieved with the said adjudication order dated 25.04.2013, the Central Excise Department has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Pursuant to the appeal filed by the Department, the appellant herein also filed the cross objection. The appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 25th November, 2013 by setting aside the adjudication order dated 25.04.2013 and allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue-appellant. The impugned order is the subject matter of the present dispute.
2. I find that by invoking the proviso to Rule 9 of the cenvat credit Rules, the original authority has allowed the cenvat benefit to the appellant, subject to satisfaction of the concerned authorities that the goods have actually been received in the factory and accounted for in the books of accounts. I am of the view that the adjudicating authority has taken the correct stand, which is in confirmity with the cenvat statute. In this contest, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Krishna Maruti Limited vs.CCE, Delhi reported in 2012 (277) ELT 357 (Tri-Del.) has held that cenvat credit is not deniable merely because the invoice contained the address of the corporate office, when there is no dispute about the duty-paid character and their receipt in the factory premises and their utilization in the manufacture of the final product by the appellant. Thus, I am of the view that there is no merit in the impugned order in denying the cenvat benefit to the appellant.
3. I find that the authorities below have not specifically referred to the relevant rules, under which the penalty can be imposed on the appellant. However, on perusal of the Show cause notice, I find that the proposal has been made for imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Considering the fact that there is no element of fraud, suppression, willful misstatement with intention to evade payment of Central Excise Duty, I am of the view that the provisions of section 11AC cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty.
4. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita ??
??
??
??
0 4