M/S Jaiswal & Neco Ltd.Ccd vs C.C.E. & St Raipur

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 22/RPR-II/2013 dated: 03.04.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Raipur]

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 Jaiswal & Neco Ltd.Ccd ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & ST Raipur Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. P V Sadavarte, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing.20.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52932 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

Cenvat credit taken on the disputed goods used for manufacture of the capital goods within the factory has been sought to be denied in the Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2011 on the ground that the appellant did not maintain proper records as provided under Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 29.02.2012 in confirming the cenvat demand. In the said order, the adjudicating authority had accepted the submissions of the appellant that proper records have been maintained, showing use of the impugned inputs for manufacture of capital goods within the factory. However, the credit was denied on the ground of non-maintenance of RG-1 register (Daily Stock Account). In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has assigned altogether the new reason in the impugned order for upholding the cenvat demand. The issue with regard to denial of cenvat credit is common in the show cause notice, adjudication, as well as impugned order that the conditions of Rule 9(5) have been violated for non-maintenance of proper records.

2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that during the disputed period, the appellant had maintained the records such as, Form-IV register, RG 23A Part-I & II, ER-1 return etc., to demonstrate that the disputed inputs have been received and used for manufacture of capital goods installed in the factory. Thus, according to the Ld. Advocate, the conditions of Rule 9(5) have not been violated by the appellant.

3. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. I find from the available records that receipt of disputed inputs and use of the same for manufacture of the capital goods installed within the factory has not been disputed in the impugned order. Rather, in the adjudication order, it has been specifically held that the appellant had maintained proper records to show the receipt and utilization of the disputed inputs. Since, proper records have been maintained by the appellant regarding receipt and utilization of input for the intended purpose, I am of the ceondiered view that the allegation of contravention of the provisions of Rule 9(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be leveled against the appellant for recovery of the cenvat credit. I am not considering the other grounds raised in the impugned order for confirmation of the cenvat demand, because those grounds were not raised in the show cause notice. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1