Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Navyug Processors Pvt.Ltd

Appeal No.E/808/2007-DB [Arising out of OIA No.142/2007(Ahd-I), dt.31.03.2007, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-I Appellant

Vs

M/s Navyug Processors Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For Respondent: None

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:24.08.2015

Order No. A/11230 / 2015, dt.24.08.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), where the Adjudication order was set aside.

2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent. There is no application for adjournment.

3. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondent was engaged in the manufacture of Woven Fabrics of Synthetic Filament Yarn and other Woven Fabrics of Synthetic Staple Fibres, classifiable under Sub Heading No.5403 and 5510 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent was availing benefit of Notification No.29/2004-CE and 30/2004-CE, both dt.09.07.2004. There is a dispute for the period July 2004 to March 2005 that the Respondent has availed the CENVAT Credit, but not maintained separate accounts for the dutiable and exempted goods.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Appellant had availed and utilised CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,08,059.00 which has been paid by them with interest in the month of March 2005. This fact was not disputed by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals), after following the Boards Circular, observed that the Respondent already reversed the credit along with interest and therefore, the demand of CENVAT Credit cannot be sustained. It was also observed that the demand is liable to set aside on limitation.

5. After going through the records and considering the submissions of learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2