Universal Cables Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal

(Arising out of OIA No.86/BPL/2012 dt.23.4.12 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Bhopal)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 07.05.2015

For Approval & signature:

Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Universal Cables Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Bhopal Respondent

Present for the Appellant: Ms.Sukriti Das, Advocate

Present for the Respondent:Shri M.R.Sharma, AR

Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

FINAL ORDER NO.51592/2015

PER: ASHOK JINDAL

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the appellant was asked to reverse credit of CVD paid on the imported goods which have been cleared as such.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported semi conductive water blocking tape and received the same in the factory premises in the month of December, 2009. The appellant took cenvat credit of CVD paid on the imported goods. In the month of February, 2010, the appellant found that certain components were defective and the same were returned to the original supplier without reversing cenvat credit or CVD. During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant is required to reverse cenvat credit. Therefore, the impugned proceedings were initiated against the appellant. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant has not come up with any evidence that these defective goods were to be put in use for manufacturing of final products. In the circumstances, both the lower authorities have held that the appellant is required to reverse cenvat credit on these goods which have been cleared for re-export. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before me.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that these components were found defective and the same were re-exported. It is further submitted that as these components were put in use, therefore, there is no requirement to reverse cenvat accredit as held by the Tribunal in the case of Ericsson India Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I vide Final Order No.53407-53408/14 dt.21.8.14 wherein the Tribunal has held that the cenvat credit is not required to be reversed.

4. Learned AR drew my attention to the reply to the show cause notice wherein the appellant has not contested that these goods were put to use or not.

2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.

3. On perusal of the records, I find that the appellant has not defended before the lower authorities either by way of reply to the show cause notice or during the course of personal hearing that these goods were put to use by the appellant. In the absence of evidence on record, I hold that the appellant is required to reverse cenvat credit of CVD paid on these goods as per Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal filed by the appeal is dismissed.

(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)

(ASHOK JINDAL)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

mk

4 4