Commissioner Of Central ... vs Solvay Vishnu Barium Pvt Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 44-2012 dated 06/07/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), TIRUPATI ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. 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?

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,Customs & Service Tax TIRUPATI NULL 9/86-A...BEHIND WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, M.R.PALLI, - 517502 AP Appellant(s)

Versus

Solvay Vishnu Barium Pvt Ltd URANDUR VILLAGE, SRIKALAHASTI, CHITOOR DIST. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) For the Appellant

Shri B. Srinivasu, Advocate For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 20/02/2015

Date of Decision: 20/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20871 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner(Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.

2. After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Pakshi Rajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR) and Shri B. Srinivasu, Advocate, I find that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Barium Carbonate Barium Chloride and Sulphur and was availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the inputs as also service tax credit in respect of input services.

3. As a scrutiny of records, Revenue found out that they have taken the CENVAT credit of Rs.12,95,021/- on the quantity of 1106.82 of pet coke received by them from M/s. Rain Commodities Ltd., Kurnool (RCL), on the basis of invoices issued by them during the month of March 2010 and April, 2010. The corresponding transport documents revealed that the goods stand transported from Chennai as per the consignment notes issued by the transporters. As such, Revenue entertained a view that the documents on the basis of which the respondent has taken the credit were not proper documents and the invoices issued by RCL, on the basis of which the respondent has taken the credit, were not covering the consignments in question and the goods were not at all under the cover of the said invoices. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them for denial of the credit, which culminated into an order passed by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand along with confirmation of interest and imposing penalty.

4. On an appeal against the above order, the appellate authority appreciated the respondents stand that the coke was imported by RCL and was offloaded at Chennai Port. Instead of first transporting the goods to Kurnool and then to the respondents factory premises, same was sent directly by RCL, to the respondents premises. The another objection of the Revenue that the goods attracted duty @ 14% ad valeram whereas RCL has paid 16% was also not accepted by the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground that whatever duty was paid stands taken as credit by the present respondent. He also held the demand to be barred by limitation. Accordingly he set aside the impugned order of the Additional Commissioner, against which the present appeal stands filed.

5. After hearing both the sides, I find that as observed by Commissioner(Appeals), there is no doubt that the respondents have received the goods directly from Chennai and have used the same in the manufacture of their final product. As such, the procedural and technical objections raised by the Revenue cannot be appreciated. I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Pronounced in court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja..

4