M/S. A.J. Stationery (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise Mysore

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 39/2009 dated 15/01/2009 passed by CCE(Appeals), Mangalore]

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?

M/s. A.J. Stationery (P) Ltd. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise Mysore Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Shri B.C. Bhatt, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri A.K. Nigam, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 13/02/2015

Date of Decision: 

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper articles which were exempted from payment of duty prior to 01/03/2006. However in the year 2006, the said products were leviable to duty @ 8% vide Notification No.10/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006. Consequently, the appellant became entitled to the credit of duty paid on the inputs lying in their stock, which they claimed and availed in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Subsequently, the appellant also procured a certificate from the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of input manufacturer and supplier of the same to the appellant and claimed the benefit of Central Excise duty to the extent of Rs.2,08,784/-. The said credit stands denied to the appellant on the ground that the same is irregular having been availed on the basis of the certificate issued by the jurisdictional Range Office of the supplier. Accordingly proceedings were initiated resulting in passing of the present impugned order.

3. I find that with the goods becoming dutiable, the appellant filed a list of inputs lying in their stock as on 01/03/2006 and CENVAT credit to the extent of Rs.99,255/- was allowed to them. It is only subsequently on 20/09/2006 they produced the certificate from the input supplier having jurisdiction over the factory one M/s.Caprihans India Ltd., Bangalore and claimed additional CENVAT credit. Though I agree with the appellant that such a certificate, in the given set of facts and circumstances, would be a sufficient document to allow the credit but primarily it has to be decided as to whether the said inputs received by the appellant during the period July 2005 to January 2006 were still lying in their stock as on 28/02/2006. As per the lower authorities, the said stock position was not reflected by the appellant in their first letter addressed to their Range Superintendent filed on 28/03/2006. For availing the credit of duty, the goods are required to be in the stock as on the date they became dutiable.

4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the stock position, based upon the documents and if the inputs were in stock, to allow the CENVAT credit based upon the certificate issued by the Superintendent. Appeal is disposed of in above manner.

(Pronounced on ..)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

Raja.

3