Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Gaurav Krishna Ispat (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 8 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 2108 of 2011 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 92/RPR-I/2011 dated 26/05/2011 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur.] For Approval and signature : Honble Shri 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? 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of : the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair : copy of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Department Authorities? M/s Gaurav Krishna Ispat (I) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Raipur Respondent
Appearance Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri U.K. Srivastava, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) DATE OF HEARING : 08/08/2013.
Final Order No. 57416/2013 Dated : 08/08/2013 Per. Rakesh Kumar :-
The appellant are manufacturers of MS Ingots, TMT bars etc. During the period from April 2005 to March 2008, the appellant on account of short receipt of the inputs, issued debit notes totalling Rs. 23,26,279/- to the suppliers. The department being of the view that to the extent the inputs were short received, the appellant would not be eligible for Cenvat credit, issued a show cause notice for recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 3,95,666/- in respect of the allegedly short received inputs alongwith interest and imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 28/9/10 by which the above mentioned Cenvat credit was confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals), the demand was reduced to Rs. 42,943/- alongwith interest and penalty was also reduced proportionately. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the shortage was not the actual shortage, that the same constituted very small percentage of about one percent of the total quantity received, that in view of this, the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit and imposing penalty is not correct. More so, when there is no variation of duty paid on the goods.
4. Shri U.K. Srivastava, the learned DR defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. In this case, there is no dispute that there was short receipt of inputs by the appellant and this stands admitted by the issue of debit notes. When the short receipt of the inputs stands admitted by the appellant, they would not be eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs not received. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced in the open court.) (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) PK ??
??
??
??
3