M/S. Eei Capsules Ltd vs C.C.E. Bhopal

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 293/BPL/2009 dated: 13.08.2009 passed by CCE (Appeals) Bhopal]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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. EEI Capsules Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. Bhopal Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. R. K. Gupta, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 21.07.2015

Final Order No. 54017/2015_

Per S K Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Bhopal, upholding disallowance of cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority. The reasons assigned for denial of the cenvat benefit are that the during the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the capital goods and simultaneously claimed the depreciation on the Central Excise duty amount.

2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

3. The submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are that the depreciation has been claimed by the appellant on the assessable value and Central Sales Tax amount paid thereon. According to him, no depreciation has been claimed by the appellant on the Central Excise Duty indicated in the invoices issued by the suppliers. To substantiate the claim that the deprecation benefit under the Income Tax Act has not been claimed on the excise duty component, the Appellant had submitted the certificate issued by M/s Mishra Tiwari & Associates Chartered Accountants before the lower authorities, wherein upon verification of the books of accounts, the said firm has certified that no depreciation has been claimed on the excise duty component. However, the said certificate has not been accepted by the authorities below on the ground that the Chartered Accountant firm, who had issued such certificate, is not the signatory of the Balance Sheet and the Annual Accounts of the appellants company.

4. I find that the genuineness of the certificate issue by M/s Mishra Tiwari & Associates, certifying that the depreciation has not been claimed on the excise duty component, has not been doubted by the Central Excise Department. Further, during the course of hearing of appeal, the Ld. Advocate has submitted the certificate dated 15.04.2010, issued by L. N. Malik & Company, Chartered Accountants, who have signed the annual accounts of the appellant company. In the said certificate, it has been stated that the depreciation has not been claimed on the excise duty component indicated in the Central Excise invoices issued by the suppliers. Since the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant, who has audited the books of accounts of the appellant company was produced for the first time before this Tribunal, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the Original Authority for verification of the factual aspect regarding claim of depreciation benefit on the Central Excise component and also to examine the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant firm in that regard.

5. Both sides agree that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority.

6. Considering the fact that the issue relates to the period 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the Adjudicating Authority should complete the adjudication proceedings preferably within the period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 2

Page | 1