M/S. Grindwell Norton Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 303/2009-C.E. dated 31/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]

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? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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

M/s. GRINDWELL NORTON LTD DEVANAHALLI ROAD, O FF OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400, CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Cherian Punnoose, Advocate A.K.B. ASSOCIATES #211, COMMERCE HOUSE, 9/1, CUNNINGHAM HOUSE, 9/1, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE - 560052 KARNATAKA For the Appellant

Mr. R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 26/06/2015

Date of Decision: 26/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21503 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

The appeal is against denial of CENVAT credit of Rs.4,58,959/- and imposition of identical amount of penalty. An amount of Rs.3,78,216/- stands denied in respect of inputs written off from their books of accounts, during the period April 2006 to May 2007. The balance credit of Rs.80,473/- stands denied in respect of CHA services availed for export of their final product. The said denial is by way of issuance of show-cause notice on 20.8.2008 by invoking the longer period of limitation.

2. I find that both the issues are decided by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal. It was held in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur: 2010 (261) E.L.T. 692 (Tri.-Mum), that there is no requirement for reversing the CENVAT credit of duty in respect of the written off inputs lying in the factory, prior to issue of Notification No.26/2006-C.E (N.T.) dated 11.5.2007 vide which sub rule 5(B) in Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, providing specific reversal of credit was introduced. The said decision stands confirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2011 (272) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.). To the same effect is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ray Ban Sun Optics India Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur: 2012 (283) E.L.T. 276 (Tri.-Del.). As such, I am of the view that the said denial of credit in respect of the inputs written off from the accounts, is not called for.

2.1 As regards the credit availed on CHA services used for export of the goods, the Tribunal in various decisions has held that since the places of removal gets extended to the port area, such services have to be held as eligible cenvatable services. Reference can be made to the following decisions.

(i) Grindwell Norton Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: Final Order No.25037 & 25038/2013 dated 7.2.2013.

(ii) CCE, Rajkot vs. Rolex Rings P. Ltd. : 2008 (230) ELT 569 (Tri.-Ahmd.)

(iii) CCE & CE, Hyderabad vs. Pokarna Ltd.: 2013 (30) STR 379 (Tri.-Bang.)

(iv) Kuntal Granites Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2007 (215) E.L.T. 515 (Tri.-Bang.)

3. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. As the appeal has been allowed on merits, no orders on the issue of limitation are being passed.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 26.6.2015.)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER

rv

3