Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jayco Electricals vs C.C.E. & S.T.-Meerut-I on 17 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
Appeal Nos. E/57599 & 57600/2013-EX[SM]
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 11 & 12-CE/M-I/2013 dated 31.01.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I.
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? : No
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? : Seen
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? : Yes
Jayco Electricals APPELLANT
VERSUS
C.C.E. & S.T.-Meerut-I RESPONDENT
APPEARANCE Request for adjournment by the Appellant Shri V.R. Reddy (Asstt. Commr.) A.r. for the Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) DATE OF HEARING & PRONOUNCEMENT : 17. 08. 2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 70836-70837/2016 Per Mr. Anil Choudhary :
The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant have taken Cenvat credit rightly of Rs.1,76,812/- on inputs namely new insulating oil (transformer oil) under the fact that the invoice was addressed to its head office and not to the factory address.
2. The brief facts are that, the appellant are manufacturer of transformers and also engaged in repairing of the transformers, purchased new insulating oil vide invoice No.00827 dated 14/7/2008 and took Cenvat credit of Rs.1,76,812/-. During the course of audit by Revenue in January, 2010, the taking of the said credit was objected to, and, the appellant reversed the credit. The objection of the audit was that the invoice of the said input was not addressed to the factory address, but the same was addressed to the head office of the appellant. However, the appellant suo-moto took credit after a few days of the said amount, without seeking any prior permission from the competent authority. However, they gave intimation to the revenue authority. Accordingly, Revenue issued show cause notice objecting to the taking of suo-moto re-credit proposing to recover the said amount under Section 11A read with Section 11AB vide a show cause notice dated 04/03/2011. The appellant did not file any reply to the SCN, the same was confirmed vide order in original along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004. Both, Revenue and the assessee preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee appealed for setting aside the demand and penalty whereas the Revenue appealed for charging of interest under Section 11 AB, which has been erroneously not charged in the adjudication order. Vide orders of even date both the appeals were decided vide separate orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the assessee observing that the goods were received in the head office of the appellant and the appellants failed to produce any evidence regarding delivery/transportation of goods to the factory. Allowing the Revenue appeals, he upheld the demand of interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant-assessee has filed these two appeals against the two separate orders passed the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ankur Jain have filed prayer for adjournment on the ground that they have not received the notice for hearing but could know the date of hearing from the cause list. I reject the said time prayer and take up the appeals for hearing. Heard learned A.R. for Revenue and perused the records.
4. Having considered the grounds of appeal and rival submissions, I find that it is not in dispute that the appellant have not received the inputstransformer oil, the credit of which has been disputed. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) have also accepted the receipt of the input, but have only observed that it appears that the input have been received in the head office and not in the factory. There is no allegation of the revenue that the head office is a separate manufacturing unit. Accordingly I hold that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit of Rs.1,76,812/- under the facts and circumstances. Accordingly, both the appeals stand allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law.
(Order was dictated in the open Court)
(A.CHOUDHARY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Patel/-
2
E/57599 & 57600/2013-EX[SM]