Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Ludhiana on 29 May, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO. 2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI COURT II EXCISE APPEAL NO. 2007-2008/05-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 68/RPR-II/2006 dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President 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 would 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. Malerkotla Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Shri Mohammad Farooq Appellants Vs. CCE, Ludhiana Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellants, Shri S.L. Meena, SDR, Departmental Representative, for the Revenue Coram:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 29th May, 2008 FINAL ORDER NO._________________ dated __________ Per S.S. Kang:
Heard both sides.
2. Appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby demand was confirmed after denying the credit on the ground that vehicle number mentioned in the invoices under which inputs were received are not of trucks and the registered dealer had not received the inputs, hence, the appellants had not received the inputs. Penalties were also imposed.
3. Contention of the appellants is that there were 3 invoices in dispute wherein vehicle numbers were mentioned as HR 3A 8001, PB 23 1795 & PCU 624. Contention is that the appellants purchased the inputs from M/s. Vishal & Co. under invoice which shows truck No. as HR 3A 8001. G/R issued by the transport company also shows the same number. The appellants also produced copy of Octroi receipt showing the same number and the description of the same goods. The weighment slip at the time of receipt of goods at the factory also shows the same vehicle number. Same is the situation in case of other truck numbers. As the inputs received in the factory are used in the manufacture of final product which were cleared on payment of duty, therefore, denial of credit on the ground of truck number mentioned in the invoices are not sustainable. There is no evidence on record that the appellants procured the raw material from some other source which are used in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, credit cannot be denied.
4. Contention of the Revenue is that inquires were made from the transport office regarding registration of truck number mention in invoices under which inputs were received by the appellants. Inquiries show that number mentioned in the invoices are not of the truck, therefore, credit was rightly denied.
5. I find that the appellants produced copy of invoice showing truck number and also produced G/R issued by the transport company showing the same truck numbers. Octroi receipts also bearing the same truck number and the weighment slip also bearing the same truck numbers. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellants had not received inputs in question. As the appellants received the inputs from registered dealer under the cover of invoice showing payment of duty, therefore, denial of credit on the ground that registered dealer has not received the material is not sustainable. Impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (S.S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT Dated 29th May, 2008 RK