Commissioner of Central Excise v. Saturn Industries
2011-03-01
N.KUMAR, RAVI MALIMATH
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.— These two appeals are by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the Assessee was not required to have paid the duty as they were exempted from paying the duty as the classification of the product was held in favour of the Assessee. Consequently, the order of Commissioner of Appeals refusing to give modvat credit was set aside. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed resolving several disputes between the parties. Basically, the liability to tax arose because of the classification. The Tribunal has held Solid Concrete Blocks are classifiable under Heading No. 6807.20 of the GET and consequently the assesses are entitled for the benefit of SSI Notification, and therefore they are exempted from paying the duty. It also held that the assesses are entitled to the modvat credit though the delivery notes do not satisfy the legal requirement The Board's circular No. 441/7/99 CX dated 23.2.1999 has clarified that mere not following the procedure cannot form the basis for rejecting the Assessee's claim to avail modvat credit especially when sufficient evidence about the duty payment on inputs and usage in the manufacture of excisable goods were available on records. 3. While admitting these appeals, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: Whether the appellate Tribunal was right in setting aside the finding recorded by the first. Appellate Authority that the Respondent has not furnished the particulars required under Rule 7(1)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 to avail the benefits? 4. The benefit was denied only on the ground of noncompliance with the Rules and coupled with the fact that the delivery notes is not the satisfied document. In view of the aforesaid circular issued by the Board coupled with the fact that the very liability is exempted by virtue of the notification, the said substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, there is no merit in both these appeals. They are dismissed.