M/S. Vinod & Co vs C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/51867/2014 -Ex[SM]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a manufacturer of both dutiable and exempted goods is alleged to have used common inputs without maintaining separate records under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Revenue's demand for reversal of cenvat credit cannot be sustained if the records show that cenvat credit was availed only on inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and none on inputs used for exempted goods, so that no common input on which credit was taken was used for exempted goods. Where the adjudicating authority has, on the basis of the jurisdictional officer's verification of the assessee's records, found as a fact that no credit was taken on inputs used for exempted goods, and the Revenue adduces no evidence to show that common inputs were in fact used for both categories of goods, the demand is not legal and proper and the appellate authority is not justified in confirming it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Excise Appeal No. E/51867/2014 -Ex[SM] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 91/APPL/CUS(D) Camp Chd./2013-14 dated 03.01.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Delhi (Camp at Chandigarh)]
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. Vinod & Co ...Appellant Vs. C.C.E. & S.T. Ludhiana Respondent
Appearance:
Sh. Kamaljeet Singh (Advocate) for the Appellants Mr. R K Mishra, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing.01.09.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. __54246 /2015___ Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of both dutiable as well as exempted goods. During the disputed period, the Department alleged that the appellant had used common input for manufacture of both the category of goods i.e. dutiable and exempted, and as such, separate records as provided under Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was required to be maintained. Since, the appellant did not maintain the records; the Department initiated Show Cause Proceedings against the appellant proposing reversal of cenvat credit. The SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 28.02.2011 wherein, the proposals made therein was dropped. Appeal against the said order was allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the Revenue. Hence this present appeal is before this Tribunal.
2. Heard ld. Counsel for both sides and perused the records.
3. I find that the adjudicating authority has recorded specific findings that the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the dutiable final product and no cenvat credit has been taken on the inputs used for manufacture of the exempted goods. Since common input on which cenvat credit taken have not been used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has rightly dropped the cenvat demand proposed in the Show Cause Notice. I find from the available records that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has arrived at such conclusion based on the verification report submitted by the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent. Since, the cenvat demand in the present case has been set aside by the Original Authority, upon proper analysis of the records maintained by the appellant; I am of the opinion that there is no justification on the part of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to deny such benefits to the appellant. Since no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate that common inputs have been used for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods, I am of the considered view that the impugned order confirming the cenvat demand is not legal and proper. Therefore, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(S.K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha
2 | Page E/51867/2014-Ex[SM]
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