M/S.Saket Steels Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh-I

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHD-EXCUS-000-APP-169-13-14 dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh-I]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE 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.Saket Steels Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Chandigarh-I  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri R.K. Mishra, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.08.2015

Final ORDER NO. 54094/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, wherein cenvat credit of Rs.60,524/- denied to the appellant in the adjudication order, has been upheld.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The appellant availed cenvat credit of Central Excise Duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the said final product. During the month of January, 2005, the appellant purchased Bar Cuttings from M/s. Jyoti Steels, the first stage dealer. The credit was denied on the ground that the said dealer had issued fictitious invoice to the appellant enabling it to avail cenvat credit on the basis of said document. It has further been alleged that no excisable goods had been received under the cover of invoice. The investigation conducted by the Central Excise Department reveals that the dealer M/s. Jyoti Steels had not purchased any input materials from the manufacturer of M/s. Jai Kara Steel Rolling Mills and as such taking of cenvat credit on the basis of fictitious invoice is not proper.

3. Shri Vikrant Kackria, the ld. Advocate for the appellant appearing for the appellant submits that the invoices issued by M/s. Jyoti Steels based on which the cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant bear the reference of manufacturer of the goods i.e. M/s. Bee Cee Steel Rolling Mills who had paid the central excise duty attributable to the goods supplied to the dealer M/s.Jyoti Steels. It is the submission of the ld. Advocate that since the disputed goods were received under the cover of valid duty paying documents and used for the intended purpose, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. The ld. Advocate also submits that the Central Excise Officers have not verified the records of the manufacturer M/s.Bee Cee Steel Rolling Mills to ascertain the fact as to whether the goods have actually been supplied by such manufacturer to the dealer M/s.Jyoti Steels. It is his further submission that since the goods have been received and duly accounted for in the accounts of its records maintained by the appellant denial of cenvat credit is not proper.

4. Per contra, Shri R.K. Mishra, the ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order.

5. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.

6. It is seen from the available records that M/s.Jyoti Steels, the first stage dealer has supplied the goods under the cover of central excise invoices to the appellant. Based on the said invoice, the appellant had taken cenvat credit of central excise duty indicated in the invoices. I find that the invoices issued by the first stage dealer M/s.Jyoti Steels bear the reference of the manufacturer M/s. Bee Cee Steel Rolling Mills, whose factory premises have not been inspected/verified by the Central Excise Authorities. On the basis of investigation conducted at the factory of M/s. Jai Kara Steel Rolling Mills who has no relation as far as the present appellant is concerned, it cannot be a ground for denial of cenvat credit benefit. Since the supply of goods by the manufacturer M/s.Bee Cee Steel Rolling Mills have not been disputed in the present case and the other documents available in the case record clearly demonstrate that the goods have been received and used for the intended purpose, the cenvat credit in my considered view, cannot be denied to the appellant.

7. Thus, I am of the considered view that there is no substance in the impugned order and as such the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2