Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs Nand Mangal Steels P.Ltd on 29 May, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, NEW DELHI
COURT No. III
Excise Appeal No.883 of 2008(SM)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 29.05.2012.
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.05/CE/APPL/LDH/2008, dated 18.01.08 issued by CCE, Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Ludhiana Appellant
Versus
Nand Mangal Steels P.Ltd Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Present for the Appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, AR Present for Respondents Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Adv.
Order No._______________ Dated :___________ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri Sanjay Jain, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for respondents.
2. It is seen that respondents who are engaged in the manufacture of non-alloy steel ingots availed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs.2,58,455/- during the period 28.02.2000 to 06.12.2000 on the strength of invoices received from registered dealers namely M/s Adhunik Ferro Alloys and Nepa Steels India. The said two dealers had purchased the materials from Tata Iron & Steels Co. Ltd. (TISCO).
3. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for denial of Modvat credit on the ground that the vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO are registered as scooters, tractors and motorcycles which were not capable to transport quantum of such huge scrap shown in the respective invoice. As such it was alleged that consequently the two dealers in question did not receive the inputs and as a result the same inputs were not received by the appellant.
4. The original adjudicating authority dropped the Show Cause Notice (SCN) by observing that the assessee had taken reasonable steps provided under the law to ensure that duty paid goods stands received by them. There is no dispute about the fact of truck nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by the two dealers. He also observed that there is no dispute about the receipt of material at stockyard of TISCO as also by receipt of the material by the appellant. Accordingly SCN was vacated by him.
5. Being aggrieved with the said order, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) who rejected the same. It was observed by the appellate authority that as per statement of assessee, the inputs were received by them and entered in RG-23, Part I & II registers and have been used in the manufacture of their final product which was cleared on payment of duty. The department has not brought on record any evidence to dispute the above position. As such he has held that merely because the vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices of TISCO stockyard are not correct, it does not mean that the goods which the appellant has procured from the dealers in respect of which there is no dispute, are not the same very goods. He also relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal in support of his stand.
6. Being aggrieved with the order of Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed further appeal before Tribunal.
7. I find that there is no dispute about the correctness of the invoices issued by TISCO for their stockyard. Further the invoices issued by the dealers showing movement of the goods from their place to the respondent are also not being disputed. The only dispute is about the correct vehicle nos. mentioned in the invoices issued by TISCO. Revenue has also not disputed about receipt of the inputs of the appellant. In the absence of any allegation as regards the invoices issued by the dealers showing movement of the inputs from his place to the assessees factory, I am of the view that the discrepancy, if any, in the invoices issued by the TISCO stockyard will not result in denial of credit to the respondents. No infirmity is found in the views of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Judicial Member RK-I 3