M/S Mohit Industries Ltd vs Commissioners Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. : E/13794/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The demand for Cenvat credit cannot be sustained where the show cause notice does not clearly establish that the assessee failed to maintain separate accounts for exempted and dutiable goods, and the assessee's uncontested assertion that it maintained such separate records is accepted; in the absence of a specific finding and evidence of non-maintenance of separate records, the allegation of unutilised credit being wrongly used cannot support the demand, interest, or penalty.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of OIA-SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-230-13-14 dtd 23.10.201 Passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II( Appeal )]
M/s Mohit Industries Ltd Appellant(s)
Vs
Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II( Appeal) Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri Mukund Chauhan (CA) For Revenue : Shri L Tendupatra (AR)
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Honble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter 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 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
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. R.K. Singh, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 4/2/2015
ORDER No. A/10195 / 2015 dtd 4/2/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Crimped Polyester Texturised Yarn/Gray Fabrics. The dispute relates to denial of Cenvat Credit of Rs 99,929/-alongwith interest and penalty for the period 31.7.2006 to 22.11.2006. By show cause notice dtd 22.4.2009, it has been alleged that the appellant availed benefit of exemption notification No 29/2004-CE dtd 29.7.2004 in respect of clearance of Gray Fabrics and availed Cenvat Credit and paid duty. They have also availed the benefit of exemption notification 30/2004-CE dtd 9.7.2004 in respect of Texturised Yarn and cleared without payment of duty. In the show cause notice dtd 22.4.2009, it has been alleged that there was unutilised credit balance of Rs 1,29,70,128/-, which should be maintained separately. It was found that subsequently in some cases the assessee utilized cenvat credit of Rs 99,929/- out of the said amount for payment of duty on finished goods. The allegation is mainly based on that the appellant would not maintained record separately. The appellant took a stand that they have maintained record separately for the exempted duty and finished products.
2. On perusal of impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudicating authority has clearly mentioned the facts regarding the maintenance of separate records by the appellants. The appellant in the grounds of appeal stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) they have maintained records separately against the exempted as well as dutiable finished goods. This fact was not seriously disputed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. In view of the above discussions, the demand of Rs 99,920/-alonwith interest and penalty are not justified. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(R.K. Singh) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
2
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