Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. T W Exports Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 133/NS/GGN/2006 dated 16.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Delhi III ].

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

Delhi III

Vs.

M/s. T W Exports Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M S Negi, DR for the Appellants

None for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing /decision: 19.08.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52816/2015-EX(DB)

Per B Ravichandran:

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of made up textile articles. The department on noticing that the respondents were not following the proper procedure of filing monthly ER 1 returns under procedures relating to exports under Notification No. 41/2001 CE, initiated the proceedings against them resulting in the adjudication order dated 24.10.2005. The original authority disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs.7,19,910/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount. On appeal by the respondent, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeal.

3. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not follow all the conditions of the exemption notification. They have not specifically opted out of the SSI exemption and as such, they are not entitled to avail cenvat credit. They have not filed periodical returns and the proof of export was submitted very belatedly. The impugned order was contested on the ground that the party availed exemption under notification No. 8/2003 and as such were not eligible for cenvat credit.

4. During the arguments, learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. We have examined the appeal papers carefully and considered the submissions of AR. The point for consideration is eligibility of the respondent for cenvat credit. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) examined all the grounds now taken up by the Revenue and arrived at his decision. He concluded that export of goods by the respondent has not been disputed. Such export cannot be considered as exempted clearance. He held that Cenvat credit cannot be denied in respect of duty paid inputs as consumed under the goods exported in bond. As such, cenvat credit denied on the ground that the respondent availed notification No. 8/2003-CE is not correct. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the procedural irregularities alleged by the Revenue concluded that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent had evaded any Central Excise duty or cenvat credit was taken wrongly or mis-utilized in any manner. In fact, he relied on the original authorities findings that there is no contravention of Rule 4(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. And as such, the cenvat credit was taken correctly. In the appeal filed by the Revenue, we do not find any specific legal or factual issue which contradicts the finding of learned Commissioner (Appeals). We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

(operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal) Member(Judicial)

( B Ravichandran )

Member(Technical)

ss

2