Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Krishna Maruti Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 3 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066. BENCH-,,,,,SM Excise Appeal No.E/328/2010-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.340/MA/GGN/2009 dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Delhi III at Gurgaon]. M/s. Krishna Maruti Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.Hemant Bajaj, Advocate Present for the Respondent:Shri. P.K. Sharma, DR Coram: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing/Decision:03.01.2012 ORDER NO. _______________ DATED:________ PER: D.N.PANDA Ld. Counsel submits that job worker of the appellant manufactured certain moulds for the former the ultimate use thereof in manufacture of intermediate goods for the appellant. Instead of moving the moulds from one place to other i.e. from the premises and of the job worker to the appellant premises in turn going back from the appellants premises to the job workers premises for use in manufacturing intermediate goods, book entry was only made by way of a note on the invoice issued by job worker M/s. NTF (India) Pvt. Ltd. The note read as This Tools (Retained in the factory) are property of Krishna Maruti Ltd. (Door Trim Division). At present it is being used by us in our factory to make out component of Moel Car (Door Trim) for them.
2. In such circumstance Revenue made an allegation that since the mould was not received in the premises of the appellant there was no mould further send by the appellant to the job worker M/s. NTF (India) Pvt. Ltd. for use in manufacturing intermediate goods. With this allegation cenvat credit of Rs.8,69,320/- was disallowed. There was nothing loss of Revenue made because the moulds manufactured have suffered duty and that is not contradictory by Revenue.
3. Ld. Representative for Revenue supporting order of the authority below submits that movement of goods is mandatory for claiming cenvat credit. Once the goods are not moved, but mere paper entries were made, the appellant was denied benefit of cenvat credit claimed in respect of that mould.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. When job worker i.e. M/s. NTF (India) Pvt. Ltd. categorically stated in the body of invoice that the tools retained by it are property of the appellant and used to make components for the appellant, such a statement remained uncontroverted. It was to reduce the exercise of movement of goods and no malafide was attributed or attached to the conduct of the appellant. The rule cannot be impediment or become a tyrant but should be servant of law to do justice. This is not said from the angle of equity but from the ground reality in view of a bonafide declaration appeared on the invoice. Had the declaration been converted into malafide by proper investigation by the Revenue, appellant would have been denied benefit. While pragmatic approach should be made to law, practical approach cannot be ruled out. What that was practical was agreed between the parties. The cenvat credit does not appear to have been claimed malafide. Therefore, appeal is allowed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Anita