Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Ngef Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. 274/2003 dated 24/09/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise , Bangalo
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where inputs used in the manufacture of a final product are subsequently written off from the assessee's books of accounts, the Cenvat credit taken on those inputs is not liable to be reversed for a period in which the law contained no provision requiring such reversal; the absence of a statutory reversal requirement during the relevant period is decisive.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 274/2003 dated 24/09/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise , Bangalore-I ( Appeals) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR 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? 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 Bangalore-I Post Box No. 5400, CR Buildings, Bangalore 560 001 Appellant(s)
Versus NGEF Ltd. Byappanahalli Bangalore - 38 Karnataka Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. N. Jagdish, DR For the Appellant
None For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 21/07/2015 Date of Decision: 21/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21675 / 2015
Per: ARCHANA WADHWA
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned DR Mr. N. Jagdish. Nobody appeared for the respondents. A very short issue is involved i.e. whether the respondents are liable to reverse the cenvat credit so availed by them in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the final product, which subsequently stands written off from their books of accounts. Commissioner (Appeals) has granted relief to the respondents following various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunals decision in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Limited reported in [1992 (60) E.L.T. 479 (Tri.)].
2. Learned DR brings to our notice that the law was subsequently changed in the year 2007 and the credit was required to be reversed in respect of the absolute written off final product. Inasmuch as during the relevant period, there was no such provision of law, we find no infirmity in the view taken by Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly Revenues appeal is rejected. (Order pronounced in open court)
(ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
iss
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