Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Satyam Auto Components Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 16 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 55518 of 2013
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 107/SA/CCE/2012 dated 26.10.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon, Haryana]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
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?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Satyam Auto Components Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE, Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. B.L. Narsimhan, and Shri R K Hasija, Advocates for the Appellants Shri Govind Dixit, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar , Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision : 16.04.2014 Final Order NO . A/_51669_/2014-Ex(DB) Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
The appellants received cut iron and steel sheets from M/s. Neel Metal P. Ltd. who cleared the same on payment of duty and Cenvat credit stand availed by the appellant. The Revenues case is that M/s. Neel Metal P.Ltd. was not entitled to avail the credit and pay the duty on the said cut sheets as the activity at his end does not amount to manufacture.
2. It is seen that proceedings were also initiated at the end of M/s. Neel Metal P.Ltd. for denial of credit to him on the ground that same stand availed on the basis of endorsed bill of entry and also on the ground that the process in his hand does not amount to manufacture and therefore could not have paid the duty. Such proceedings stand dropped by Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi, III vide his order dated 31.5.12.
3. However, the demand against the appellant stand confirmed on the sole ground that M/s. Neel Metal P.Ltd. could not have paid the duty in which case the appellant was not entitled to take the credit. The fact remains that duty has been paid by M/s. Neel Metal P.Ltd. and goods have been received by the appellant and further utilized. The reassessment cannot be done at their level. In any case, proceedings having been dropped at the end of M/s. Neel Metal P.Ltd. which was the entire basis of the allegations, Revenues case no longer survives.
4. As such, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit to the appellant is not sustainable. Same is accordingly set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar) ss Member(Technical)
??
??
??
??
2