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



Makson Healthcare Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Bhopal


Company & Directors' Information:- BHOPAL HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110MP2012PTC029128

    Final Order No. A/50841/2017-SM(BR) in Appeal No. E/53036/2016-SM

    Decided On, 10 February 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ARCHANA WADHWA
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: P.C. Kashiv, Advocate And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, AR



Judgment Text


1. After hearing both sides, I find that the dispute in the present appeal relates to availment of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various capital goods received by the appellant in the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. In the first year the appellant have availed 50% of the credit and in the subsequent year balance 50% was availed. As a result of audit objection, subsequently the appellant was called upon to produce the invoices which they could not produce as the same were lost by them. On account of appellants inability to produce the invoices, the proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 31-3-2015 by invoking the longer period of limitation. Said proceedings resulted in passing of present impugned order denying the credit and imposing penalties.

2. The appellants' contention is that file containing invoices was subsequently lost and they have made efforts to procure the invoices from the manufacturers or from the Range authorities of the manufacturers. The said invoices were placed before the authorities below to take note of the same. Learned advocate placed them on record and submits that most of the invoices were received by them from the manufacturers, but fairly agrees that some of the invoices could not have been received. He further submits that they were maintaining all the requisite records and capital goods received in their factory, were still available and the Revenue, if desired, could have made inquiries from their counterparts having jurisdiction over the manufactures factory so as to establish the duty paid character of the capital goods. Merely because the invoices were not available after a period of three to four years, cannot be adopted as a ground for denial of credit but when the same original invoices were available at the time of availing credit. He also assails the demand on the point of limitation.

3. The purpose of allowing the credit of duty paid on the capital goods is to reduce the duty burden on the final product and the cascading effect. Admittedly, when the appellant originally took the credit, all the entries were made in their statutory records and all the returns were also filed with their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities and were attached and all particulars are reflected in ER1 return. In such a scenario, to reject the refund claim for non-production of invoices after a period of 3 to 4 years, is neither justifiable nor warranted. Otherwise also, I find that appellant is able to produce most of the invoices subsequently thus establishing duty paid character of the invoices. The said invoices do not stand considered by the lower authorities. As such, I am of the view that matter needs to be remanded for verification of said invoices and in respect of invoices which the appellant has not been able to produce, the other corroborative evidence can be looked into and examined or in the alternative Revenue can make verification from the jurisdictional Centra

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

l Excise authorities of the capital goods manufacturers and suppliers. As such, if the duty paid character of the capital goods is established, the appellant would be entitled to the credit of the same. With the above observations, impugned orders are set aside and matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority.
O R