Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Reliance Industries Limited vs Cce & St, Jaipur Ii on 19 November, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING/DECISION : 19/11/2014. Excise Stay Application No. 50835 of 2014 in Appeal No. 50676 of 2014 and Excise Stay Application No. 51531 of 2014 in Appeal No. 51302 of 2014 and Excise Stay Application No. 51649 of 2014 in Appeal No. 51376 of 2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. JAI-EXCUS-002-COM-82-13-14 dated 25/11/2013 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, 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 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 : Department Authorities? M/s Banswara Sybtex Ltd. ] M/s Reliance Industries Limited ] Appellants M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. ] Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur II Respondent
Appearance Ms. Silpa Balani, Ms. Sukriti Das and Shri Ganesh Bapu T.R., Advocates for the appellants.
Shri Ranjan Khanna, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 54681-54683/2014 Dated : 19/11/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit in both the cases, we proceed to decide the appeal itself in as much as the disputed issue stands covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal.
2. M/s RSWM Ltd. procured advance licences as against exports made by them. Such advance licences could have been used by the said appellant for import of the inputs, free of duty. However, they got the same invalidated and transferred the same to some other manufacturers of the raw materials, from whom they procured the raw materials on payment of duty and availed Cenvat credit of the said duty so paid by the indigenous manufacturers.
3. The Revenues is of the view that they should have procured the raw materials from the other manufacturers without payment of duty, in which case they would not have been in a position to avail the credit. Accordingly, proceedings initiated against them resulted in passing of the present impugned order denying the Cenvat credit to M/s RSWM Ltd. and imposing penalties on M/s Reliance Industries Limited, who is the supplier of the raw materials.
4. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Balakrishna Industries & Ors. vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2014 (309) E.L.T. 354 (Tri. Del.) has considered an identical issue and after referring to various precedent decisions, has come to the conclusion that the Cenvat credit of duty paid by the raw material suppliers cannot be denied to the advance licence holders.
5. By following the said decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief. Stay petition also get disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
2