M/S. Mars Associates P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 31/CE/D II/ 2013 dated 5/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi]

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. Mars Associates P. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi II

Appearance:

Ms. Mallika Joshi, Advocate for the Appellants

Ms Ranjana Jha, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 25.06.2015

ORDER NO. FO/52055 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat credit has been denied to the appellants on the premise that the said address/unit from where they have taken the credit, the said address is not mentioned in the invoice. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit.

2. Heard the parties and considered the records.

3. In this case, the appellant is having head office at Okhla and having two units at Naharpur and Manesar. In Manesar unit, audit was conducted and it was found that some invoices are in the name of their Naharpur unit whereas credit has been taken at Manesar unit. The contention of the appellant is that these machines and other goods have been installed in their Manesar unit and have gone on job work challan to Naharpur unit. Therefore, they have taken the Cenvat credit correctly. But from the records, it is not clear whether only Manesar unit has taken the credit or Naharpur unit has also taken the credit. This fact is to be verified by the adjudicating authority. If on the strength of invoices only, one unit has taken the credit, then the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat credit but this fact is to be verified by the adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, matter needs examination therefore, by setting aside the impugned order matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for verification and thereafter to allow the Cenvat credit as per law to the appellants.

4. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Cenvat credit (Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

2