Crompton Greaves Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 309/2008 dated 18/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

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

Crompton Greaves Ltd. Telecom Division, 10A, Jigani Industrial Area, Bangalore Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs Bangalore (Adjudication) C.R Building, P.B No. 5400, Queen's Road Bangalore  560 001 Karnataka Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Mr. Mohd Yusuf, 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. 21323 / 2015

Per: ARCHANA WADHWA

On matter being called neither anybody appeared nor is there any adjournment request. Accordingly I have heard learned DR and have gone through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has accepted the Revenues appeal and has reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority vide which he had dropped the demand against the appellant.

2. The dispute relates to reversal of cenvat credit in respect of written off inputs during the period 2005-06. By appreciating the appellants stand that the said inputs are still available in the factory and they have been written off only in the accounts as per the accounting principle and by following the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Bharat Electricals Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore (50 RLT 208), the Additional Commissioner vacated the demand raised in the show-cause notice dated 19.12.2006.

3. Revenue being aggrieved with the said order of the original adjudicating authority filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority took note of the Boards Circular No. 645/36/2002-CX dated 16.07.2002 laying down that wherver inputs are fully written off, the credit availed must be paid back, accepted the Revenues stand and allowed the appeal.

Hence the present appeal.

4. After going through both the orders passed by the original as well as by appellate authority I find that the original adjudicating authority had dropped the demand by following the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s. Bharat Electricals Ltd. On the other hand Commissioner (Appeals) has not adverted to the said decision but allowed the Revenues appeal by following the Boards Circular. It is well settled law that the law declared by the quasi judicial and judicial authorities would have precedence over the Boards Circulars. I also note that apart from the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Bharat Electricals Ltd., there are number of other decisions laying down that when the inputs are written off from the accounts but are still available in the factory, there is no requirement of paying back the cenvat credit inasmuch as law does not lay down any time limit for use of such inputs. In fact by taking note of the said decisions, the law was subsequently amended requiring the assessee to reverse the cenvat credit in respect of said written off inputs. As the period involved in the present appeal is before the said amendment, the law declared by the Tribunal would apply. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), restore the order of the original adjudicating authority and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

iss