C.C.E. Chandigarh vs M/S. Atma Tubes Products Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 945/CE/CHD/06 dated: 04.10.2006 passed by CCE Chandigarh]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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?

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?

C.C.E. Chandigarh ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Atma Tubes Products Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. G. R. Singh, DR for the Appellants

None appeared for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.28.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53181 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

The brief facts of the case are that the Department initiated Show Cause proceedings against the respondent for the period January 1998 to August 1998 and October 1998 to March 1999 on the ground that Modvat Credit on HR Strips/ Coils had been taken, without receipt of the goods in their factory premises. The Show Cause Notices were adjudicated vide order dated 28.02.2006 wherein, proposals made therein were confirmed. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the the duty demand and penalty on the ground that the documents maintained by the Respondent clearly demonstrate that the goods had been received in the factory premises and used for intended purpose.

2. Heard Sh. G R Singh, the Ld. DR for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent despite issuance of several notices.

3. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat benefit on the ground that the respondent had maintained adequate records to demonstrate that the disputed goods have been received in the factory for the intended purpose. Since the issue involved in the present case is entirely fact based and the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a reasoned and speaking order holding that the respondent herein is eligible for the cenvat credit, I am of the view that it will not be appropriate to interfere with the findings recorded in the impugned order. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the same, and as such, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

1 | Page

E/1216/2007-Ex[SM]