M/S. Kancor Colours Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 304/2011 CE dated 29/09/2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI 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. KANCOR COLOURS LTD SY NO.426, MATEBENNUR, BAYADGI TALUK, HAVERI DIST KARNATAKA. Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax And Customs BANGALORE-II PB 5400 CR BUIDING, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. G. Subramanian, Consultant CENTRAL TAX ASSISTANCE BUREAU KARIMPATTA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682016. KERALA For the Appellant

Mr. S. Ilangovan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 19/06/2015

Date of Decision: 19/06/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21387 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Vide the impugned orders, the lower authorities have denied the CENVAT credit availed on the capital goods wrongly as also CENVAT credit availed on the inputs, as on the day of their crossing the exemption limit and coming under the excise net.

2. Learned advocate submits that they are not challenging the denial of CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods and accepted their liability and also have reversed the same. However, in respect of CENVAT credit on inputs, he submits that the same was originally availed on the basis of a photocopy of invoice, on the day when they crossed the exemption limit and started paying duty on their final products. This was in respect of the inputs lying in stock either as such or inputs contained in the finished goods or the inputs in process, on the date of Central Excise registration was taken. Though the credit was originally procured on the basis of the photocopy, they subsequently produced the original invoice before Commissioner (A).

3. The Commissioner (A) has rejected their stand on the ground that the original invoice was not produced before the lower authorities as also on the ground that there is no evidence produced on record that the said inputs were available in the stock as on the day when they started paying duty.

4. It is seen that the appellants have subsequently produced the original invoice, and the lower authorities were bound to take note of. Further, the Commissioner (A) has observed that the appellants have only produced computer generated worksheet of details of stock of input available on the relevant date and have not produced any evidence to show that such inputs were lying in stock on the date of registration by the appellant. I find that all these facts are verifiable and would be available from the accounts maintained by the assessee. The lower authorities instead of rejecting the appeal on such technical grounds could have called for the relevant records, maintained by the appellant during the course of their regular business. As such, I am of the view that the matter needs to go back to the original adjudicating authority for undertaking the above verifications. I order accordingly and direct the appellant to produce all the relevant documents before the lower authorities to substantiate his claim.

Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3