Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Compackt

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 447-2011 dated 13/12/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II) Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 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? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax BANGALORE-III PB.NO.5400...QUEENS ROAD, CENTRAL REVENUES BUILDING, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

COMPACKT NO.28/1-B, DODDAKALLASANDRA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 062 Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Ajay Saxena, A.R. For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 14/09/2015

Date of Decision: 14/09/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK K. ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21932 / 2015

Per : ASHOK K. ARYA

None appeared for the respondent. However, the appeal being about three year old it is being taken up for decision today. This appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore III against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 13.12.2011 wherein the respondent namely M/s Compackt has been found to be entitled to take CENVAT credit on the strength of the duty paid documents i.e. bill of entry on the amount of duty which has been paid by the respondent.

2. The learned A.R. Shri Ajay Saxena argues that the Respondent namely M/s Compackt amended the bill of entry regarding the quantity when the lesser quantity of goods had been found imported; however the respondent did not do the amendment for the duty paid to the Customs. The fact is that the Respondent paid the same duty as was mentioned before the amendment in the bill of entry. The amendment was only to the quantity of the goods imported.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) has quoted CBEC Circular No. 877/15/2008-CX., dated 17.11.2008 which inter alia says that if the manufacturer has paid higher duty then Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 allows the credit of the duty paid by the input manufacturer. The circular dated 17.11.2008 clarifies that the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer as shown in the invoice will be availed as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to the clearance of the goods, price is reduced or otherwise. The Circular also says that it has also to be confirmed that no refund has been claimed by the supplier.

3. Considering the facts on record and the contents of the Circular quoted above, there is no justification and legal basis for the appeal filed by the department. The appeal, therefore, stands rejected as unsustainable in law.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK K. ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER

pnr

2