Skip to content


M/S. Associated Manufacturers India Vs. Commr of Central Excise and Service Tax-haldia - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata
Decided On
Case NumberStay Petition No.-70430 of 2013 & Excise Appeal No.-70425 of 2013 (Arising Out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 14/KOL-II of 2013 dated-05/02/2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise, Kolkata)
Judge
AppellantM/S. Associated Manufacturers India
RespondentCommr of Central Excise and Service Tax-haldia
Excerpt:
.....rule 15 of cenvat credit rules, 2004. 2. the ld. advocate at the outset, submits that the ld. commr. (appeals) has not decided issue on merit but dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. he submits that they manufactured ms bolts and screws and purchased nuts from the market and the same were supplied alongwith m.s. bolt and screws to make it a complete set. he submits that cenvat credit on nuts were denied on the ground that no manufacturing activity was involved in relation to ms nuts. he submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this tribunal in the case of m/s. crompton greaves ltd. vs. commr. of central excise, mumbai-iii reported in 2008 (230) e.l.t. 488 (tri.-mumbai). he submitted that they have a strong prima facie case on merit. 3. the ld......
Judgment:

DR. D.M. MISRA, J.

1. This is an application filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs.22,873/- and equal amount of penalty imposed under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The Ld. Advocate at the outset, submits that the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) has not decided issue on merit but dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. He submits that they manufactured MS Bolts and screws and purchased Nuts from the market and the same were supplied alongwith M.S. Bolt and Screws to make it a complete set. He submits that CENVAT Credit on Nuts were denied on the ground that no manufacturing activity was involved in relation to MS Nuts. He submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Mumbai-III reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 488 (Tri.-Mumbai). He submitted that they have a strong prima facie case on merit.

3. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue accepted that the issue has not been decided on merit and submitted that he has no objection in remitting the case for fresh decision.

4. After hearing both the sides for some time, I am of the opinion that the appeal could be decided at this stage. Hence, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, I take up the appeal for disposal. I find that the issue has not been decided on merit but the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) has dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the direction of pre-deposit. I find force in the argument of the Ld. Advocate that the issue needs to be considered in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Supra). Therefore, I am of the view that the Ld. Commissioner should address the issue on merit. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter be remitted to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh on merit without insisting for pre-deposit. Needless to mention a reasonable opportunity of hearing be accorded to the appellant. All issues are open. The appeal is allowed by way of Remand. S.P. disposed off.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //