Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 27 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
E/566/2009
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 21/09 (M-III) dated 09.07.2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT
_________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the :
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. : Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri A.S. Monnappa, Adv., for the appellant Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT Date of hearing : 27.08.2010 Date of decision : 27.08.2010 Final ORDER No._____________ Cenvat credit of Rs. 66,422/- has been disallowed to the assessees herein, on the ground that it was taken on the strength of two invoices issued by M/s. Sriram Textiles Pvt. Ltd., who are third stage dealers, and therefore such invoices have been held to be invalid document for the purpose of availing credit.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessees does not dispute the finding of denial of cenvat credit on merit. However, his contention is that the entire demand is barred by limitation, for the reason that the credit was availed in March, 2004 and the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 11.12.2006, and there is no charge of suppression in the show cause notice and moreover, the assessee had taken reasonable steps as required under the Rules to satisfy himself that the invoices on the strength of which he took credit contained all the necessary particulars including registration number of M/s. Sriram Textiles Pvt. Ltd.
3. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the authorities below on time bar.
4. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, I find that the assessees argument that the demand of credit taken is time barred has force, for the reason that the documents on the strength of which they took credit contain all the necessary particulars as required for the purpose of taking credit and it is not the case of the department that the assessees had knowledge that M/s. Sriram Textiles Pvt. Ltd, was a third stage dealer and therefore the assessees could not take credit on the relevant invoices. I, therefore, set aside the demand and penalties and allow the appeal only on the ground that the demand is barred by limitation.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE PRESIDENT BB 3