Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
(Arising Out Of Order-In-Original ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 25 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE COURT - I Stay Application No.: E/Stay/26383/2013 in Excise Appeal No.: E/26071/2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.51/2012 (C. Ex.) dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Tirupati Commissionerate, Tirupati.) M/s. Maruti Ispat &Energy Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Tirupati Commissionerate, Tirupati. Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.07.2013 Date of Decision: 25.07.2013 PRESENT Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate For the Petitioner/ Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, (AR) Superintendent For the Respondent CORAM SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. 25708 / 2013 [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy]. Major portion of the demand of CENVAT credit wrongly availed according to the department amounting to nearly 90% is on the ground that appellant could not produce corroborative evidence to show that they had received iron ore and coal on their own account and as well as on behalf of their principals for whom they undertook job work.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that the matter is required to be remanded and therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and take up the appeal itself.
3. In this case, the Commissioner has come to the conclusion that appellant is not eligible for CENVAT credit on iron ore and coal received by them because they could not produce any evidence and the evidence produced in the form of RG 23 Part-I according to her did not reflect the correct position. This conclusion has been reached on the basis that RG 23 Part-I for the year 2011 was filed by generation in the computer whereas in February 2012 the same was filed manually and no proper explanation for this was forthcoming. Further, she also states that appellants have not filed ER-5 and ER-6 returns and therefore, the consumption of raw materials also could not be corroborated. Because there was no corroborative evidence for receipt and consumption of the iron ore and coal and RG 23 Part-I was not relatable, she has disallowed the credit.
4. The learned counsel submitted that now they have got all the copies of invoices and documents to show the receipt of raw materials purchased on their own account as well as from the Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. for whom they do job work and he draws our attention to papers filed by him in four volumes.
5. We consider it appropriate that these voluminous documents can be verified by the original adjudicating authority rather than our undertaking this job. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority who shall undertake fresh adjudication. Needless to say that evidences produced shall be examined and appellants be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, thereafter a well-reasoned order is passed according to law. It is made clear that all the issues are kept open.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (ANIL CHOUDHARY) Member (J) (B.S.V. MURTHY) Member (T) rv 3