Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Taksus Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 April, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 3023 of 2012- (SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 129/CE/CHD/2012 dated 30/7/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr 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?
M/s. Taksus Steels Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
& ST, Chandigarh I Appearance:
Shri Kamaljeet SIngh, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing /decision: 28.04.2015 FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 51572/2015-(SM) Per Ashok Jindal :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the CENVAT credit of Rs.9,71,097/- stands denied to the appellant on the ground that they has received only the invoices without the receipt of inputs in question. In as much as the manufacturer of the goods, i.e., M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills & Metal Industries could not have cleared so much of scrap from their factory.
2. The above decision of the lower authorities is based upon the investigations made by the Central Excise officers at the manufacturers end i.e., in the factory of M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills & Metal Industries, who are engaged in the manufacture of CTD rounds/bars, etc. As per the investigation conducted it was found that the said M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills & Metal Industries was clearing defective CTD bars and rods by showing them as scrap which amounted to almost 80% of the production. Revenue has entertained a view that under the category of defective bars, the prime quality bars were being cleared by them and the invoices were being raised for the defective rounds and corresponding melting scrap was being cleared under the said invoices.
3. I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the investigations conducted at the end of the manufacturing unit of M/s. Aggarwal Steel Rolling Mills & Metal Industries. Admittedly, the said manufacturer was also clearing the scrap or the defective goods, etc. to some extent. There is nothing on record to show that the goods were not actually received by the present appellant, which stands duly reflected by them in their RG-23 Part A register and stand utilised by them in the manufacture of their final product. Further, as seen from the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), he has observed that there is circumstantial evidence available on record to indicate that the defective rounds produced by the manufacturer were not scrap. Such circumstantial evidence referred to by the Commissioner (Appeals) is the fact that the original manufacturing unit has shown more clearance of defective rounds than the prime quality rounds. There is otherwise no evidence to show that such excess cleared defective rounds were received by the present appellant. They may have received defective goods/scrap, which was admittedly defective and was capable of melting in the furnace. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find that the denial of CENVAT credit on the basis of the investigations conducted at the third party end cannot be adopted as the sole basis for denial of credit. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with the consequential relief to the appellants.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2