M/S. Sarvottam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E & S.T. Meerut-I

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal17 August 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/53223/2014-EX(DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's reasoning rests on a single principle: where the Revenue has accepted the duty paid by the supplier under the classification adopted by the supplier and has itself received duty on those goods, a recipient who has availed Cenvat credit on the basis of such duty-paid goods cannot be denied that credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, merely because the Revenue later contends the goods are not classifiable under the claimed heading.

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. IIApplication No. E/STAY/53639/2014Appeal No. E/53223/2014-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 127-CE/MRT-I/2013 dated 30.08.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Meerut].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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. Sarvottam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. .Appellants

Vs.

C.C.E & S.T. Meerut-I .Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri R.K. Grover, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing: 17.08.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52594/2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Heard the parties.

2. With the consent of both the parties we are disposing of the appeal as well as the stay application altogether.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant availed Cenvat Credit against the invoices issued by M/s. Kisco Castings for the goods Metal Rolls Forged and classified the goods under Chapter CTH 84553000 and paid duty thereon. The appellant has received its goods which are duty paid and availed Cenvat Credit.

3. Revenue is of the view that this Metal Rolls Forged are not classifiable under CTH 84553000. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to take Cenvat Credit. Therefore, impugned proceedings were initiated.

4. Considering the submission made by both the sides we find that in this case the Revenue has accepted the duty from the supplier of the goods under CTH 84553000 and also paid duty on these goods. Therefore, as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, Cenvat Credit to the appellant cannot be denied.

5. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential, relief if any. Stay application is also disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(B. Ravichandran) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

E/53223/2014-EX(DB)

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