M/S. Aswad Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal11 May 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 53073 of 2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a refund claim turns on Cenvat credit taken on invoices lacking the supplier's registration number, and the jurisdictional Range Superintendent has, on verification at the adjudicating authority's request, certified that the supplier actually paid the duty and that the invoices are genuine, the credit is available to the assessee and a refund claim cannot properly be rejected in the face of that certificate without any contrary basis.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIExcise Appeal No. 53073 of 2014

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. MRT-EXCUS-000-APP-151-13-14 dated 28/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Meerut (UP) ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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. Aswad Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Customs & ST, Meerut

Appearance:

Shri Alok Arora, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G.R. Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 11. 5.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 51622/2015 SM

Per Ashok Jindal :

Refund claim of the appellant was rejected by both the lower authorities.

2. The facts of the case are that the audit was conducted in the premises of the appellant and it was found that appellant has taken Cenvat credit on three invoices issued by M/s. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., UP as the registration number of supplier of goods was not mentioned in the invoices. The appellants reversed the Cenvat credit taken on the strength of these invoices along with interest. Later on, realizing that they have correctly taken Cenvat credit, they filed the refund claim which was rejected by both the lower authorities. Against the said order, appellant is before me.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that during the course of adjudication, the adjudicating authority sought verification from the concerned Range Superintendent who verified and filed his report certifying that the duty mentioned in the impugned items have been paid by the supplier of the goods. Therefore, it is a genuine case for availment of Cenvat credit but without considering the same, both lower authorities have rejected their refund claim.

3. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of impugned order.

4. Heard both the sides. Considered the submissions and perused the records.

5. On perusal of the record, I find that the adjudicating authority has to check the authenticity of the invoices and obtain the report which is reproduced as under:-

To check the authenticity of the subject invoice the Superintendent Central Excise, Range Lakhimpur, Division Sitapur was asked vide this office letter dated 13.12.2012 to verify and to affirm the genuineness of said invoices issued by M/s. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Hargaon, (Sitapur). The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range Lakhimpur vide his letter dated 20.12.2012 (copy enclosed) informed to this office that M/s. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. Hargaon made payment of duty through input Credit balance on sale of scrap of M/s. Aswad Steels and Alloys (P) Ltd. , which appears to be sufficient for the genuineness of the invoices as aforesaid.

6. After obtaining the said report, adjudicating authority as well as Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the refund claim of the appellant which is unfortunate. The assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the invoices which is found in order. Therefore, the Cenvat credit would have been allowed to the appellant but both the lower authorities have gone beyond their jurisdiction to reject the refund claim of the appellant without any basis. When there is clear cut report that the supplier of the goods has paid the duty on the impugned goods and certified the genuineness of the invoices. In these circumstances, the impugned order have no legs to stand. Therefore, same is set aside, appeal is allowed with consequential relief. The adjudicating authority is directed to comply the order within 30 days of receipt of this order.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

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