Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Pricol Ltd. Plant Iii vs Cce, Salem on 7 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/357/2012
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2012 dated 26.3.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem)
M/s. PRICOL Ltd. Plant III Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Salem Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 07.09.2015 Final Order No. 41110 / 2015 The short dispute as has been argued by learned counsel is that the appellant was principal manufacturer and it has engaged job worker. That job worker used liquid ammonia supplied by the appellant. The output thereof that came back to the appellant was nitrogen. Both the supply and receipt of the input and finished goods was through pipeline. There is no deviation to that. Once there is no deviation, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have considered whether the concern which used liquid ammonia of the appellant for manufacture of nitrogen for onward transmission to the appellant was job worker. He has not done that. Had there been consideration the dispute on the allowability of CENVAT credit would have been reduced. There is no contradictory finding in the appellate order. Therefore on that aspect appellant succeeds.
2. The second issue raised by the appellant is that certain tools manufactured by the appellant in its factory were meant for re-use thereof on behalf of their client. Therefore, only an invoice was raised and excise duty was collected from their clients and the duty so collected was paid to Treasury. Such duty paid tools were used for clients. Therefore, there cannot be denial of the CENVAT credit of the duty paid which has legitimately gone to Treasury.
3. The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) does not deal with the specific pleadings made by the appellant in the order recorded by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, no dealing with the pleading resulting in violation of principles of natural justice calls for redressal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in para 19 has recorded no clearance of the tools shall disentitle the appellant to the CENVAT credit. This part of the order is absolutely erroneous for which the appellant should get the benefit. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2