M/S Scj Colourants vs Commissioners Of Central Excise

[ Arising out of OIA-SRP/121/DMN/SDMN/2012-13 dtd 24.9.2012 passed by Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN ]

M/s Scj Colourants - Appellant(s)

Vs.

Commissioners of Central Excise, - Respondent(s)

Customs and Service Tax-DAMAN

Represented by

For Assessee : Shri S J Vyas, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Govind Jha, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble 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?

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. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 25/6/2015

ORDER No. A/10960 / 2015 dtd 25/6/2015

Per : Mr. H K Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with respect to OIA No SRP/121/DMN/SDMN/2012-13 dtd 24.9.2012 under which cenvat credit of Rs 8,97,5637/- alongwith interest, and equivalent penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, was sustained by the First Appellate Authority.

2. Shri S J Vyas, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the whole proceedings are based on the ground that the documents, under which cenvat credit was taken, does not contain all the particulars required under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. It is the case of the appellant that corrected copies of the duty paying documents were made available to the Dept. in view of the Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rule 2004. Therefore, cenvat credit was admissibility.

3. Shri Govind Jha, Authorised Representative, appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that it is not coming out from the findings of the lower authorities whether the credit documents were produced for inspection during the course of the proceedings.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. It is the case of the appellant that the corrected copies of the cenvat documents were produced before the lower authorities. However, on perusal of case records, it is observed that no such mention is made in the findings of the orders passed by the lower authorities. However, the claim of the appellant that corrected documents were produced by the appellant before the lower authority which makes credit admissible as per proviso to Rule 9(2) of the cenvat Credit Rules 2004. This aspect can only by verified by the Adjudicating Authority whether discrepancies noticed initially were rectified or not as per Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat credit Rules. The matter is, therefore, required to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority in remand proceedings. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority. Needless to say that the appellant shall be given an opportunity to explain their case regarding rectification of discrepancies before deciding the appeals in denevo proceedings. It is made clear that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)

swami

??

??

??

??

2