Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd., Unit ... vs Cce, Madurai on 14 December, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
E/MISC/595/2010 and E/789/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 113 114/2005 dated 13.7.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
M/s. Rajalakshmi Paper Mills Ltd., Unit II Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Madurai Respondents
Appearance Smt. Sridevi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 14.12.2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 Misc. Order No. ____________ Final Order No. ____________ Heard both sides.
2. The appellants have been denied input credit of Rs.59,221/- and capital goods credit of Rs.2,11,944/- on the ground that the impugned goods which were consigned to Unit I of the appellants were utilized in Unit II of the appellants located in the same premises after the appellants themselves altering the excise code number on the relevant invoices and also writing Unit II on the said invoices. The denial is primarily on the basis of the allegation of tampering with the duty paying documents as stated above and not on the ground of either non-receipt of the impugned goods in the factory of the appellants nor on the basis of non-utilisation of the same. In view of the fact that the assessees is the same even though two separate registrations have been taken for the two units stated to be located in the same premises, and there is no allegation of either non-receipt or non-utilization of the impugned duty paid goods, I am of the view that as regards the eligibility to CENVAT credit, a lenient view should be taken and the appellants should be allowed to avail the impugned credit. I order accordingly. However, as regards the reduced penalty of Rs.10,000/- ordered by the lower appellate authority, I am of the view that the same is fully justified in view of the fact that the appellants themselves have made alterations instead of intimating the Department and following the procedure of endorsement on the duty paying documents from Unit I to Unit II. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.
3. In view of the fact that the appeal itself is disposed of, the miscellaneous application for extension of stay has become infructuous and the same stands disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) Technical Member Rex ??
??
??
??
2