Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics ... vs Cce, Chennai Iii on 22 February, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/Misc./40088/2017 and E/41836/2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.108/2015 (CXA-I) dated 18.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Chennai)
M/s. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai III Respondent
Appearance Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 22.02.2017 Final Order No. 40313 / 2017 Moving the present miscellaneous application, learned counsel says that the Final Order No. 42146/2016 passed on 9.11.2016 carried a typographical error mentioning the appeal No. as E/41836/2015 which ought to have been as Appeal No.E/41837/2015.
2. Revenue agrees to the proposition above.
3. Considering the inadvertent error as above, the cause title of the final order aforesaid shall be rectified to read as Appeal No. E/41837/2015. This disposes of Appeal No. E/41837/2015 listed today in Item 19 of the cause list.
4. In view of the above direction to rectify the mistake apparent from record, the Order-in-Appeal shall be read as No.108/2015 (CXA-I) dated 18.5.2015.
5. In the result, miscellaneous application is allowed with the above direction.
Appeal No. E/41836/2015
6. So far as Appeal No. E/41836/2015 is concerned, learned counsel fairly states that the attributed credit by Head Office which was not a registered one at the relevant point of time is not deniable to the appellant-manufacturing unit since registration is not a mandatory requirement of law but a procedural technicality. This being a curable irregularity, appellant should not be denied the CENVAT credit in absence of any deliberate intention to cause prejudice to Revenue.
7. Learned counsel further submits that there is an apprehension by Revenue that the appellant availed CENVAT credit attributable to it by Head Office both on trading activity and manufacturing activity. However, Tribunal may remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to satisfy him that the entire credit is availed for manufacturing activity but not for trading activity.
8. Considering the proposition above, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the attribution of the credit if any to trading activity and if that is attributed that should be disallowed. To the extent that is attributable to the manufacturing activity that shall be allowed. Appellant is entitled to reasonable opportunity of hearing in the course of re-adjudication. The authority after recording the pleadings and evidence shall pass appropriate order.
9. The above decision has been taken following the judgment of the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Dashion Ltd. as reported in 2016 (41) STR 884 (Guj.).
10. In the result, appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority with the above direction.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2