FILTER MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-2015-1-60
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 14,2015

Filter Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR V. CCE,ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.M.Misra, Member (J) - (1.)THIS is an Appeal filed against Order -in -Original No. 24/BST/AC/Adjn/2008 -09 dated 31.12.2008.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant are having two units situated at Dasadron R -Gopalpur, North -24 Parganas (Unit No. 1) and at F -3, Block -GP, Sector -V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata -700091 (Unit No. 2). The Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of different types of industrial filters falling under tariff item No. 8421 3920 of CETA, 1985. In the process of manufacture of finished goods, the Appellant have utilized various inputs and availed CENVAT Credit on those inputs and while discharging duty on final product utilized such credit. It is alleged that during the period December, 2006 to May, 2007, the Appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on certain inputs at their unit -1, but removed the same as such without reversal of the CENVAT Credit to their Unit No. 2 where such inputs were used in the manufacture of final product at Unit No. 2 and cleared on payment of duty. Show cause cum demand notice was issued alleging violation of various provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by Unit No. 1 and accordingly CENVAT Credit availed on the inputs cleared as such without reversal of credit was proposed to be recovered. On adjudication, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. On Appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the Appeal filed by the assessee Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal.
The learned authorized representative Shri Tapan Hazra, Commercial Manager for the Appellant submitted that even though these units were situated at a distance having separate Central Excise registration but it belong to the same management, therefore the situation is revenue neutral, hence there was no necessity for reversal of credit by Unit No. 1, while clearing the inputs, as such, to Unit No. 2. He has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar v. CCE, Allahabad, 2007 (219) ELT 606 (Tri.Del.).

(3.)PER contra, Shri S.P. Pal, Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the Appellant are required to reverse the credit availed on such inputs at the time of its removal and the removal shall be made under cover of a invoice under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) has recorded a categorical finding about non -applicability of the concept of revenues neutrality to the present facts and also observed that the Appellant had failed to establish that the inputs cleared as such were ultimately used by them in their factory at Unit No. 2. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order be upheld.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.