Case Law Details
CESTAT, MUMBAI BENCH
Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd.
versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
ORDER NOS. A/99/2013/SMB/C-IV
& S/76/2013/SMB/C-IV &
APPLICATION NO. ST/S/2779 of 2012
APPEAL NO. ST/786 of 2012
DECEMBER 18, 2012
ORDER
1. The applicant is seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the impugned demands of duty, interest and penalty confirmed against them by way of the impugned order on the premise that the CENVAT credit availed by the applicant is not on the basis of proper invoice as the invoice in the name of their Panvel office.
2. Heard both sides.
3. There is no dispute regarding that the applicant has received the input service. It is also not disputed that same has not been utilised by the applicant. Therefore, applicants are entitled for input service credit. In this view, the applicants have made out a case for 100% waiver. Accordingly, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal.
4. The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. DNH Spinners [2010] 25 STT 295 (Ahd. – CESTAT) wherein the Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee’s factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee.
Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Same analogy applies to these facts. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
