CEMA ELECTRIC LIGHTING PRODUCTS INDIA P. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-2015-7-4
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on July 16,2015

Cema Electric Lighting Products India P. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CCE INDORE V. GWALIOR CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CCE,CHANDIGARH [REFERRED TO]
PHARMALAB PROCESS EQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE VS. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
SHREE CEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

H.K.THAKUR,MEMBER - (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the Revenue for reversal of OIA No. SRP/178/DMN/2012 -13, dt. 31.12.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Vapi, Gujarat. It has been held by the First Appellate Authority that Debit Notes, on the basis of which CENVAT Credit was taken, are not specified documents in Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) but has allowed the appeal of the Appellant (Respondent in present proceedings) on the ground that documents contain all the details required in Rule 9 of CCR on the basis of CESTAT order in the case of Pharmalab Process Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE [ : 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri -Ahmd)]. Commissioner (Appeals) also relied upon the following case laws:
(2.)"a) CCE v. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. [ : 2011 (274) ELT 97 (Tri -Del)]
b) CCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. : [2011 (24) STR 691 (Tri -Del)]"

Shri Govind Jha (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that CENVAT Credit has been taken by the Respondent on the strength of debit notes issued in the name of Mumbai HQ of the Respondent and that debit note is not the prescribed document for taking credit under Rule 9 of CCR and Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is also the case of the Revenue that HQ office of the Respondent was neither registered as ISD nor credit was distributed by Head Office of the Appellant to their Daman unit.

(3.)SHRI Anand Nainawati (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that CENVAT Credit was in fact taken on the basis of ISD certificates issued by their Mumbai office. Learned Advocate made the Bench go through Para 3(v) and 8 of OIA dt. 31.12.2012 to argue that CENVAT Credit was taken on the basis of ISD invoices issued by their Head Office, which were valid documents. That Respondent's Head Office has taken credit on the basis of Debit Notes which was a wrong nomenclature and the debit notes had all the essentials of an invoice. He relied upon the following case laws to argue that even the Head Office has taken CENVAT Credit properly which is passed on to the Respondent under a valid ISD invoice, under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules: - -
"a) Valco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, [2012 (286) ELT 54 (Tri -Del)]

b) Pharmalab Process Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Ahmedabad [ : 2009 (242) ELT 467 (Tri -Ahmd)]

c) CCE Indore v. Gwalior Chemicals Industries Ltd. [ : 2011 (274) ELT 97 (Tri -Del)]

d) Shree Cement Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur -II : [2013 (29) STR 77 (Tri -Del)]"

;


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