M/S. Emami Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIO-26-DEM-VAPI-2011 dated 02.12.2011, Passed by Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi)

M/s. Emami Limited : Appellant (s) Shri Anand Mundra

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Jigar Shah, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri K. Sivakumar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing/ Decision : 08.04.2015

ORDER No. A/10327-10328/2015 Dated 08.04.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

These appeals have been filed by the main appellant M/s. Emami Limited and Sh. Anand Mundra, Authorized Signatory of the main appellant, against Order-in-Original No. 26/DEM/VAPI/2011 dated 17.12.2011.

2. Sh. Jigar Shah (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that main appellant is having two units at Masat Silvassa and Pantnagar. That Masat unit took CENVAT credit on the invoices issued by the Headquarters as ISD distributor as the Cenvatable documents issued by the Service provider are in the name of their Headquarters. It was his case that no inadmissible CENVAT credit has been distributed by appellants Headquarters to the Masat Unit and has taken appropriate care that CENVAT credit pertaining to exemption end product is not distributed. Learned Advocate also argued that where CENVAT credit was not admissible, the same was reversed by the main appellant alongwith interest and will amount to not taking of credit at all. He relied upon the following case Laws -:

(i) Swiss Parenterials Pvt. Limited vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - [2014 (308) ELT 81 (Tri  Ahmd.)]

(ii) CCE Ahmedabad-II vs. Anil products Limited - [2010 (260) ELT 54 ( Guj.)]

(iii) CCE vs. Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited - [2011 (263) ELT 661 (Guj.)]

3. Sh. K.Sivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority and argued that once appellant has taken and passed on credit on exempted Services, the amount under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 should be paid.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is the case of the appellant that no credit of inadmissible Services has been passed on by the ISD to the main appellant and where any such inadmissible credit was taken, the same was reversed. It is observed that the issue revolves around the fact whether Head Office of the main appellant has passed on the service tax credit only with respect to Services utilized in the manufacture of dutiable products. This can be done by the Adjudicating authority by getting the suitable verifications made with respect to service tax credit taken at the Headquarters of the main appellant. In view of the case laws relied upon by the appellant, reversal of inadmissible credit alongwith interest amounts to not taking the credit. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to carry out the necessary factual verification and pass speaking order in de-novo proceedings, after giving the appellants opportunity of personal hearing.

5. Appeals filed by the appellants are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court)

(P.K. Das) (H.K. Thakur) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical) ..KL

2