Cce, Madurai vs M/S. Hariram Chemicals P. Ltd
- CitationAppeal Nos.81
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where goods imported by a registered importer have been sold to a buyer, and customs duty was paid on the import, the buyer may claim CENVAT credit on the duty passed on to it, notwithstanding that the selling branch of the importer was not itself registered at the material time, provided the goods are identifiable as those imported and the principal importer is a registered importer.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.81 & 82/2013 dated 31.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai)
CCE, Madurai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Hariram Chemicals P. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance
Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant, for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 23.09.2015
Final Order No. 41256-41257 / 2015
Revenue has come in appeal in these two appeals which has raised excise duty demand of Rs.3,50,929/- and Rs.6,17,940/- disallowing CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on Muriate of Potash imported by Indian Potash Limited, a registered importer from abroad and sold by Indian Potash Ltd. through its unregistered branch to the appellant. Customs duty on the import was paid. A part of such duty was passed on to the buyer respondent which was claimed as CENVAT credit by the appellant. But that was denied by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the seller branch of the Indian Potash Ltd. was not registered dealer. On appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the principle being Indian Potash Ltd. and the selling branch was registered subsequently and the goods being identifiable from the import as well as such imports suffered customs duty, he allowed the CENVAT credit on the respective quantity of goods sold by the respondent by Indian Potash Ltd. through its branch.
2. Revenue supports the adjudication on the ground that non-registration of the selling branch of Indian Potash Ltd. denies CENVAT credit to appellant.
3. Respondents contention is that when there is no controversy on the goods came on import to India and a part such imported goods sold to the respondent by Indian Potash Ltd., mere non-registration of the selling branch of the said importer at the material period shall not disentitle the respondent to the CENAT credit.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. The law relating to CENVAT credit removes cascading effect. When there is no controversy on the imported goods being sold and such goods suffered customs duty as well as the seller was identifiable and the principal being Indian Potash Ltd. a registered importer, there should not be controversy to grant CENVAT credit in the hands of the respondent. Therefore, both appeals of Revenue fail for which that is dismissed.
6. Both the cross-objections supported the order of the appellate Commissioner without any new cause therein for which those are dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free