Skip to content


Sail Vs. Commr. of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ranchi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(2007)(121)ECC154
AppellantSail
RespondentCommr. of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....above, the penalty imposed is set aside.4. by the impugned order, the appellants have been denied credit on polyurathene lining of rolls assembly on the ground that the goods were not declared on the material time. this is a minor infraction of the rules and in our view, should not come in the way of allowing the credit. in respect of viton 'o' ring, the credit has been denied as the same was not declared as capital goods but as inputs. here again, in view of settled law, we are of the view that the credit cannot be denied.5. in respect of nickel square, the credit has been denied as the bill of entry particulars were not available in the invoices. we find that the related invoices have been issued by m/s mmtc ltd., a public sector undertaking, under rule 57g/57t and the same has.....
Judgment:
1. Heard both sides. We dispense with the requirements of predeposits and proceed to hear the appeals finally.

This appeal involves several invoices. As regards Invoice Nos. 4010, 4027 & other 8 Invoices form Durgapur Chemicals Limited and 20 Invoices from Bihar Caustic & Chemicals Limited the ld. Advocate fairly states that the credit has been denied on the ground that the same were taken after six months from the dates of related Invoices. He also states that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Indore appellants have no case on merits and hence he is not pressing the appeal in regard to these invoices. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision cited above, we hold that the credits in respect of these invoices have been rightly denied to the appellants. In regard to Invoice No. 1366, we find that the credit has been denied as the time and date of removal was not mentioned in the invoices to ascertain whether the credit was taken within six months. We find that the appellants could have got the invoices amended and removed the rectifiable defects which they have not done so far. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants have been rightly denied the credit in respect of the said invoice.

2. As regards Invoice No. 886, 887 & 927, the inputs were received from the appellants' sister plants, namely, Bhilai Steel Plant and initially there was no debit entry particulars recorded in the invoices. The ld.Advocate states that integral steel plants have been allowed to make debit entry within a week after removal of the goods and subsequently, the certificate regarding debit entry and duty payment particulars was obtained from M/s Bhilai Steel Plant which has not been admitted by the lower appellate authority holding the same to be a new evidence. In view of the fact that the steel plants have been allowed by the Department to make debit entries afterwards as a practical measures keeping in view the volume of clearances made, the lower appellate authority was not justified in ignoring the subsequent evidence regarding duty payment. As such, in regard to these invoices, we set aside the impugned order and allow the credit to the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case indicated above, the penalty imposed is set aside.

4. By the impugned order, the appellants have been denied credit on Polyurathene Lining of Rolls Assembly on the ground that the goods were not declared on the material time. This is a minor infraction of the Rules and in our view, should not come in the way of allowing the credit. In respect of Viton 'O' Ring, the credit has been denied as the same was not declared as capital goods but as inputs. Here again, in view of settled law, we are of the view that the credit cannot be denied.

5. In respect of Nickel Square, the credit has been denied as the Bill of Entry particulars were not available in the Invoices. We find that the related invoices have been issued by M/s MMTC Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking, under Rule 57G/57T and the same has been duly authenticated by the jurisdictional Superintendent. As such, keeping in view the legal requirements under Rule 57G(3), we are of the view that the impugned credit cannot be denied to the appellants. In view of our findings above, appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

6. In the result, the appeal No. 542/04 is allowed and appeal No.134/05 is partly allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //