M/S. Tulsyan Flexys Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

(ARISING OUT OF ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.07/KOL-IV/2014 DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED BY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA-III)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE OF

DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Authorities ?

M/S. TULSYAN FLEXYS PVT. LTD.

APPLICANT/APPELLANT VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-IV ...RESPONDENT

APPEARANCE:

SHRI S.P.SIDDHANTA, CONSULTANT FOR THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT;

SHRI K.CHOWDHURY, A.R. (SUPDT.) FOR THE REVENUE.

CORAM:

DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date of Hearing & Decision:27.02.2015 ORDER NO.FO/A/75106/2015

This Application is filed seeking waiver of predeposit of duty of Rs.13,146/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. At the outset, ld. Consultant for the Applicant submits that the CENVAT Credit had been denied to them on the ground that on the input invoices, along with the dealers name as buyer, the Applicants name was shown as a consignee. He categorically submits that the inputs were received in the factory and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products, and they were not directed to produce evidence in this regard.

3. Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the ld. Adjudicating Authority had recorded a categorical finding that the Applicant could not place any evidence to show that the inputs were received and utilized in the factory premises of the Applicant Company. Therefore, their contention that the goods were received and utilized, had been rejected.

4. After hearing both sides, I find that at this stage, the Appeal itself could be disposed off. Accordingly, after waiving the requirement of predeposit, and with the consent of both sides, I take up the Appeal for disposal. I find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority had recorded a categorical finding that the inputs were not received in the factory premises and utilized in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. However, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the Appellant be given a chance to adduce evidences before the ld. Adjudicating Authority about the receipt and utilization of the inputs in their factory. In the result, the impugned Order is set aside and the Appeal is remitted to the ld. Adjudicating Authority for deciding the issue afresh, after verification of the evidences to be produced by the Appellant. All issues are kept open. The Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Stay Petition is disposed off.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

SD/-03.03.15 (D.M.MISRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

DUTTA/

3 E/A/75582/2014

3