M/S. Ipf Vikram India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. IND/CEX/000/APP/56/13 dated 14.2.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, (Appeals), Indore ]

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. Ipf Vikram India Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Indore

Appearance:

Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri A K Dhawan, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 3.2.2015

FINAL ORDER NOS. A/ 50354/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant has filed the appeal against the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit on excess duty paid by the supplier.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has availed Cenvat credit on input invoices and paid duty thereon as per the invoices of the supplier. Revenue is of the view that the supplier of the inputs has paid excess duty as applicable. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat credit of the excess duty paid by the supplier. In these set of facts, the case was booked against the appellant and Cenvat credit was denied along with interest and penalties also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit on the duty paid by the supplier. It is not denied that supplier has not paid the duty therefore, whatever duty they have paid they have taken the credit thereof. To support his contention he relied on the decision of VG Steel Industry [2011 (271) ELT 508 (P&H)].

4. On the other hand, learned AR submits that as per 3 (1) (1A) and 1(2) the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit of duty payable and not of duty paid.

5. Heard both parties. Considered the submissions.

6. Proviso to Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, provides that the assessee is entitled to take credit of duty paid on the inputs but the learned AR failed to appreciate the said proviso. Admittedly, the appellant has taken the Cenvat credit of duty paid by them. In these circumstances I hold that appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit. Infact in this case no proceeding were required to be conducted against the appellant. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2