Case Law Details
Jindal Texofab Ltd Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of all the records is unwarranted. We are of the view that the aforesaid verification report is conclusive one therefore; no further material is required for establishing the stock lying in the factory of the appellant as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the direction given by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 19.11.2010.
In our view the appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed for availing transitional credit in respect of the stock lying as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat Credit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is denial of cenvat credit of Rs 85,06,974/- allegedly for not following the procedure prescribed under Rule 9A of Cenvat Credit Rules and not filing proper declaration for availing the said credit and the transitional credit as prescribed under Notification No. 25/03-CE (NT) dated 25.03.2003 and 4./03-CE(NT) dated 30.04.2003.
2. Shri Hasit Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this is the second round of appeal before this Tribunal. In the first round this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority vide Order No. A/1900/ WZB/ AHD/2010 dated 19.11.2010. He submits that as per the tribunal remand order legal issue has been settled and only remanded for actual verification of the stock of goods lying as on 01.04.2003. He submits that the appellant had filed declaration as required and the Range Superintendent has given his report. As per the report the proper verification was conducted despite this the Adjudicating Authority wanted to re- verify the entire records which is not possible after lapse of long time. The report is conclusive and on that basis the Adjudicating Authority should have decided the matter. He submits that the identical issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of Commissioner of C.EX , Mumbai –III vs. Vandana Dyeing Pvt Ltd. – 2017 (358) ELT 399 (Tri.Mum)
3. Shri J.A Patel learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
4. We have considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that in the earlier round of appeal before this Tribunal, this Tribunal has passed order A/1900/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 19.11.2010 wherein the following observation was made.
“7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the legal issues now stand decided by various decisions of the Tribunal in respect of both the disputed points. He relies upon following decisions of the Tribunal.
a) M/s Krishna Screen Art Vs. CCE AHD-2009 (233) ELT 395 (Tri-Ahd)
b) M/s VV. Prints Vs. CCE Rajkot 2008 (232) ELT 807 (Tri-Ahd)
c) M/s Vaibhav & Co Vs CCE Coimbatore 2010 (252) ELT 542 (Tri-Chennai)
d) M/s Jaldharshan Textile Vs CCE Rajkot – 2009 (243) ELT 751 (Tri-Ahd)
e) M/s Elcon Fabrics Vs. CCE Rajkot 2007 (216) ELT 694 (Tri-Ahmd.)
8. The ratio of the above decisions is that as long as there is no dispute about the stock of grey fabrics lying with the assessee as on 31.3.03/1.4.03, the MODVAT Credit cannot be denied to them, on the ground of non-filing of requisite declaration or late filing of such declaration or non-filing of intimation. It stand held that the purpose of filing requisite declaration is to put the Revenue to notice in respect of such stock and to enable them to verify the same. Similarly, the above judgments have also held that whether the grey fabrics are still in transit, but actually stand purchased and duty has been paid by the assessee, credit is available in respect of such inputs.
9. As legal issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by above referred judgments of the Tribunal, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for actual verification of the stock of goods lying as on 14.03 as also the stock in transit.
10. The impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner in above terms.”
From the above order it is absolutely clear that the legal issue has been settled in the appellant’s case. The matter was remanded only for actual verification of the stock. We find that the appellant have filed declaration of stock to the department which was verified by the Range Superintendent. The said report is scanned below:
–
As per the above report it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of all the records is unwarranted. We are of the view that the aforesaid verification report is conclusive one therefore; no further material is required for establishing the stock lying in the factory of the appellant as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the direction given by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 19.11.2010.
5. In our view the appellant have complied with the procedure prescribed for availing transitional credit in respect of the stock lying as on 31.03.2004. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat Credit.
6. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Pronounced in the open court on 18.11.2021)
