w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Riddhi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise

    Appeal No. E/85143/14 (Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. SK/234/RGD/2013-14 Dated: 28.8.2013 Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Mumbai-II) and Order No. A/90640/17/SMB

    Decided On, 13 October 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: RAMESH NAIR
    By, MEMBER

    For Respondents: A.B. Kulgod, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.)



Judgment Text


1. The fact of the case is that appellant availed Cenvat credit on the strength of Bill of entry which is not in the name of the appellant. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the groun

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d that Bill of entry is not in the name of the appellant therefore they are not entitle for the Cenvat credit. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order of the adjudicating authority, therefore appellant is before me. None appeared on behalf of the appellant, however in the grounds of appeal appellant made submission that in respect of bill of entry regarding passing on credit a declaration was appended with the bill of entry which is signed by the supplier/importer as well as custom authority. The commercial invoice issued by the supplier also contains the details of Bill of entry. He placed reliance on the following judgments:

(a) Meenakshi Match Industries Vs. CCE, Madurai [2010 (262) ELT 925 (Tri. Chennai)]

(b) Jay Bharat Maruti ltd Vs. CCE, New Delhi-I [2003 (161) ELT 194(Tri. Del)]

(c) Century N. F. Casing Vs. CCE, Faridabad [2004 (175) ELT 466 (Tri. Del.)]

2. On the other hand, Shri. A.B. Kulgod, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. On careful consideration of submission made by Ld. A.R. and perusal of appeal paper, I find that both the lower authorities denied the Cenvat credit only on the ground that Bill of entry is not in the name of the appellant. However, it is observed that a declaration duly signed by the supplier as well as customs authority is appended to the Bill of entry, wherein it was clearly declared that the modvat credit shall be availed by the appellant. It is also observed that commercial invoice issued by supplier M/s. RR International also contained details of Bill of entry, therefore on the basis these evidences Cenvat credit cannot be denied only on the ground that Bill of entry is not in the name of the appellant. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal
OR

Already A Member?

Also