M/S Surat Textile Mills Ltd vs Cce Surat I

Appeal No.E/11111/2014-SM [Arising out of OIA No.SUR-EXCUS-001-APP-614/13-14, dt.30.01.14, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs(Appeals), Surat]

M/s Surat Textile Mills Ltd. Appellant

Vs

CCE Surat I Respondent

Represented by:

For Assessee: None For Revenue: Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:02.01.15

Order No. A/10002 / 2015, dt.02.01.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. None appears on behalf of the appellant. There is no application for adjournment.

2. After hearing Shri G.P. Thomas, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the appeal is filed against the denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.48,192.00 along with interest and penalty of equivalement amount of duty. Ld.A.R. submits that the CENVAT Credit was denied on G.T.A. services for the period from August 2011 to January 2012. He submits that the appellant has failed to place any evidence that the goods were delivered at the customers premises. It is submitted that the goods are not delivered on FOR basis.

3. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Ambuja Cements Vs Union of India  2009 (236) ELT 431 (P&H) held that the assessee is not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on G.T.A. services unless it is established that the goods were supplied at the customers premises.

4. It is seen from the impugned orders that the appellant failed to produce any evidence that the goods were delivered on FOR basis and therefore, they are not eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of G.T.A. services, and denial of CENVAT Credit is justified. In my considered view, it is not the case of imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty as there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty etc. Further, there were contrary views of various Benches of the Tribunal. So, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act 1944 is unwarranted. So, the quantum of penalty is liable to be reduced.

5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified only to the extent of penalty is reduced to Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousands only). The appeal is allowed partly.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3