Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Goa vs Crompton Greaves Ltd on 4 January, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No.II Appeal No. E/233/07 (Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. GOA/CEX/BBP/111/2006 dated 8.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Goa) For approval and signature: Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Appellant Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Respondent Appearance:
Shri N.A. Sayed, JDR for the appellant None for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 4.1.2008 Date of decision: 4.1.2008 O R D E R No:..
Per: Honble Mr.K.K.Agarwal, Member (Technical) The appellant in this case has availed cenvat credit of 90,782/- on the basis of TR6 challan but the same was denied to him by the original adjudicating authority on the ground that the TR6 challan was not a prescribed document during the relevant period and became a valid document with effect from 16.6.2005 vide notification 28/05 dated 7.6.2005. The Dy. Commissioner also demanded interest on the said credit irregularly availed by the appellants and imposed a penalty of Rs. 9000/-.
2. This order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the revenue has come up in appeal stating that once the TR6 challan was not a specified document during the relevant period credit could not have been taken on the same.
3. I have considered the issue. I find that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra inasmuch as the cenvat credit has been taken on the basis of TR6 challan which according to the revenue was not a specified document during the relevant period. This issue has earlier come before the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Essel Propack 2007 (8) STR 609 and in order no. A/1603/CIV/SMB/07 dated 15.11.07 wherein an issue was taken that as long as the payment of service tax is not denied and since during the relevant period the revenue has not specified any document on the basis of which credit could have been taken, the credit of tax paid through a TR6 challan cannot be denied. Following the same, the revenues appeal is accordingly dismissed.
K.K.Agarwal Member (Technical) sr