Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Crompton Greaves Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 2511 of 2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A manufacturer who receives goods under duty-paid invoices is entitled to avail Cenvat credit thereon under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, notwithstanding that a job worker supplying those goods has failed to maintain separate accounts for packing material. Any fraud or irregularity committed by a job worker is to be dealt with by the jurisdictional Range office having jurisdiction over the job worker, and not by the adjudicating authority having jurisdiction over the recipient manufacturer, so as to deny the recipient its Cenvat credit.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 120/CE/BPL/2006 dated 25.4.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal (MP)]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
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?
Commissioner of Central Excise Appellants
Bhopal
Vs.
Crompton Greaves Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Govind Dixit, DR for the Appellants
Shri Randhir SIngh, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing /decision: 24.09.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 52967 /2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order to deny Cenvat Credit availed by the respondent on the premise that job worker /supplier of transformer oil to the respondent is not maintaining separate account for packing material.
2. Heard the parties.
3. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has examined the matter and categorically held that job worker is not in the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority and it is also not disputed that respondent has not received any goods under duty paid invoices. If at all any fraud has been committed by the job worker that is to be dealt with by the jurisdictional Range office of the job worker only. The said observation of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is correct as respondent has received duty paid goods and Cenvat credit availed thereon as per Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and same is accordingly upheld.
4. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
2
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