M/S. Kanohar Electricals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal11 May 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 53074 of 2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the impugned order denies Cenvat credit on input services because of discrepancies in the supplier's invoices, and the appellant has documents supporting its claim that the credit was availed correctly, the denial cannot stand on the strength of the discrepancies alone; the adjudicating authority must verify the records and documents on which the credit is claimed, and allow it if the documents are produced and support the claim in accordance with law.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIExcise Appeal No. 53074 of 2014

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 147(CE)MRT-1/2013 dated 28/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Meerut I]

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. Kanohar Electricals Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Meerut I

Appearance:

Shri Praveen Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants

Ms. Ranjana Jha, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 11. 5.2015

ORDER NO. FO/A51659 /2015 SM

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellants is in appeal against the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit of input service on account of certain discrepancies on the invoices issued by supplier. Learned Counsel of the appellant submits that Cenvat credit cannot be denied to them as appellant has taken Cenvat credit correctly and have given their claim for availment of Cenvat credit correctly in detailed reply as under:

2. Perused the order. This case has to be decided on the basis of facts available on record and documents provided by the appellant before the adjudicating authority and contentions made by learned Counsel of the appellant, which can be verified by the authority as claimed by the appellant in para 2 hereinabove. In these circumstances, impugned order is to be set aside matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify records/documents on the basis of which the appellant has claimed Cenvat credit without going into technicalities of the issue. If appellant is able to produce the documents in support of availment of Cenvat credit, the adjudicating authority still consider the same and allow same in accordance with the law.

3. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand. The adjudicating authority shall pass appropriate order after affording the reasonable opportunity to the appellant to produce their claim within a period of 90 days of receipt of this order.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

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