M/S Eveready Industries India Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-I
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/52147/2014 -Ex[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order upholding a cenvat credit denial, on the ground that duty-paying documents were not produced, is set aside and remanded for de novo adjudication where the appellant has asserted that the documents relied upon were enclosed with the memorandum of appeal before the first appellate authority and are available on record; the first appellate authority must hear the appellant and consider that plea before deciding the credit question.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 136/Ce/MRT-I/2013 dated: 26.09.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut-I]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
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 Eveready Industries India Ltd Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-I Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. Hemant bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. R.K. Grover, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/decision.05.01.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50133 /2015-Ex(Br)
Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):
Heard both the sides.
2. Though the matter is listed for hearing of the stay application, after hearing the matter for some time the bench was of the view that the matter can be heard for final disposal. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and with the consent of both the sides, the matter is heard for final disposal.
3. In this case by the impugned order dated 26.09.2013, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cenvat credit demand of Rs 49,493/- has been upheld along with interest, along with imposition of penalty of Rs. 6,83,736/-. The denial of the cenvat credit is in respect of certain items on the ground that the duty paying documents have not been produced. Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, however, pleads that the details of the duty paying documents on the basis of which the cenvat credit, in question, had been taken were enclosed as Annexure -12 of the Memorandum of Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the copies of these documents had also been enclosed and that the appellant are in a position to produce the original of these documents but the Commissioner has ignored this plea.
4. Shri R.K. Grover, the Ld. DR states that this issue can be examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) if the matter is remanded to him.
5. In view of this the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant and considering their plea that the documents on the basis of which cenvat credit of Rs. 49,493/- was taken, are available on record.
6. The appeal as well as stay application stand disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar)
Member(Technical)
(S.K. Mohanty)
Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 2
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