(Now Cystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.) vs Cce, Rohtak

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

of Hearing/ Decision:29.09.2015

Excise Appeal No.E/56576/2013-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.22/CE/COMMR/DM/RTK/2012 dated 24.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rotak).

M/s.Crystal Phosphates Ltd.

(now Cystal Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd.) Appellants

Vs.

CCE, Rohtak Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Shri T.R. Rastogi, Advocate for the appellant.

Rep. by Shri S. Nanthuk, Jt.CDR for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

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?

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 53061/2015 dated:29.09.2015

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order, where the Revenue sought reversal of cenvat credit on inward transportation service regarding the inputs cleared as such by the appellant.

2 Heard the parties.

3. From the facts of the case, the following issue emerges before us:-

4. In a case, the inputs have been cleared as such on reversal of the cenvat credit taken on such inputs, in that case whether the appellant is required to reverse the cenvat credit on inward transportation of such inputs or not?

5. The issue has been settled by the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Punjab Steels reported in 2010 (260) ELT 521 (P&H), wherein it has been held that the assessee is not required to reverse the cenvat credit on inward transportation service availed by the assessee in case the input is cleared as such, therefore, the issue is no more res integra. Relying on the above said decision, we hold that the appellant is not required to reverse the cenvat credit availed on inward transportation service availed for transportation of the inputs in question which has been cleared as such on reversal of cenvat credit availed on such inputs. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

[order dictated & pronounced in open court]

( Ashok Jindal )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1