Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Concast Ferro Inc

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 131/2009 dated 30/10/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE MRS. 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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 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, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I Central Excise Building Port Area Visakhapatnam  530 035 Andhra Pradesh Appellant(s)

Versus Concast Ferro Inc Dusi Village, Srikakulam Dist. Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. M.A. Narayana, Advocate No. 231, 8th E Main, Kalyan Nagar 1st Block, Bangalore  560 043 For the Appellant

Mr. N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29/05/2015 Date of Decision: 29/05/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21324 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Mr. N. Jagdish, AR for the Revenue and M.A. Narayana, advocate for the respondent.

2. The dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of cenvat credit of service tax paid by Container Corporation of India in respect of the Cargo Handling Services provided by them to the appellant. M/s. CCI raised inland weigh bill for the said services. As per the respondent, the original copy of the said inland weigh bill is given by them to the railways for the release of the cargo and a photocopy is kept by them. Periodically M/s. CCI issues certificates indicating the services provided by them and also the amount of service tax so paid by them. On the basis of the said CCI certificates read with the photocopies of the IWB, the respondents availed the credit.

3. Revenue by entertaining a view that such availment is not correct inasmuch as the respondent has not been able to produce the original copies of the IWB, initiated proceedings against them resulting in passing of an order by the original adjudicating authority. On an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents produced photocopies of the samples of IWB along with the complete certificates issued by CCI. The appellate authority accepted that such certificates are proper documents for availment of credit and accordingly allow the appeal filed by the respondent.

Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.

4. The Revenues only grievance is that Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine the entire IWBs and in the absence of the same, it was not possible for him to judge the availability of entire credit. On the other hand it is the contention of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent that it is not the Revenues case that certificates covering the entire bunch of services were not issued by CCI and were not produced by them. As long as the certificates were there, the credit has to be allowed. Learned advocate explains that photocopies of IWBs were attached only in respect of one certificate issued by CCI, as a sample and to establish that the certificates issued by CCI are proper. In this scenario no infirmity can be found in the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

5. After going through the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue, I find that their only grievance is examination of the entire bunch of photocopies of IWBs. They are not aggrieved or doubting the availability of all the certificates issued by CCI covering the entire transactions. If that be so, I do not consider any infirmity in the views of Commissioner (Appeals). Admittedly M/s. Container Corporation of India would issue the certificates based upon the IWBs, issued by them and as long as such certificates cover the services in question, credit would be available.

6. In view of the above discussion I find no justifiable reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenues appeal is accordingly rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss