M/S. Swastik Enterprises vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iv

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 44/C.E/APPEAL/DLH/IV/2014 dated: 17.04.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-IV]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble 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. Swastik Enterprises ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-IV Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Virender Kumar Sharma & R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. G.R. Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.15.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52931 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.04.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-Delhi-IV, wherein cenvat credit taken by the Appellant on Bright Steel Bars as inputs has been denied on the ground that those items are not excisable goods.

2. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that based on proper duty paying documents, the appellant had taken cenvat credit on the disputed goods, the receipt and utilization of the said goods in the factory having not been disputed by the Central Excise Department, cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the process of generation of input material does not amount to manufacture at the suppliers end. The Ld. Advocate further submits that since the classification issue and the payment of duty on the disputed goods has already been accepted by the Jurisdictional Central Excise authorities at the suppliers end, the same cannot be questioned by the officers of recipient unit.

3. Per contra, the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterates the finding recorded in the impugned order and further submits that the disputed goods are not leviable to central excise duty, and thus, duty paid by the supplier wrongly will not be available as cenvat credit to the appellant.

4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and perused the records.

5. In the case in hand, there is no dispute regarding receipt, utilization and the duty paid character of the disputed goods by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities at the appellants end. Since, the colasificaiton of the disputed goods as excisable product has been accepted by the statutory authorities having jurisdiction over the factory of the supplier and the udty paid on those goods have been retained by the Government exchequer, the Central Excise authorities at the appellants end cannot deny the cenvat benefit to the appellant, especially in view of the fact that the appellant has complied with the requirement of cenvat statute before taking cenvat credit on the disputed goods. In this context, I find support from the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs vs MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) ELT 485 S.C., wherein it has been held that the Cenvat Credit Rules entitled a recipient manufacturer to avail of the benefit of the duty paid by the supplier manufacturer, and that quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers at the supplier end cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit.

6. In view of the above settled principles of law, I find no substance in the impugned order and the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 1