Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Vs. Radha Krishna Synthetics Pvt. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of rs. 51,163/-. (e) commissioner (appeals) held that reversal of credit on 2-12-95 was wrong and therefore, taking recredit on 16-8-97 though procedurally wrong, they were eligible for such credit and therefore, allowed the appeal.4. the officers without choosing to verify as to whether consequent to issue of credit by the supplying unit to the appellant, whether any refund has been claimed by the supplying unit, chosen to cause reversal of the proportionate credit. the basis for reversal of credit was found to be wrong. in the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, i find that the order of the commissioner (appeals) is reasonable and legally sustainable. no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings and reasonings adopted by the commissioner (appeals).

Judgment:

1. This is a Department's appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. Commr(A)/21/SRT-II/2006 dated 27-1-2006.

(a) The respondent received POY during the period July, 1995 to December 1995 from M/s. Sanghi Polyester Ltd., Hyderabad and on the basis of duty paying documents took credit of duty mentioned in the said documents.

(b) The officers came across the credit notes given by M/s Sanghi Polyester Ltd. to the respondent and therefore, forced or persuaded to debit the proportionate credit on 2-12-95. Subsequent enquiry by the appellant and clarification given by the supplying unit indicated that there was no change in the assessable value which was adopted in respect of supply made by them during July to December 1995.

(c) The appellant holding that debiting of the credit on 2-12-95 was not in order taken recredit on 16-8-97.

(d) The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 51,163/- as credit having been taken without any valid document and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 51,163/-.

(e) Commissioner (Appeals) held that reversal of credit on 2-12-95 was wrong and therefore, taking recredit on 16-8-97 though procedurally wrong, they were eligible for such credit and therefore, allowed the appeal.

4. The officers without choosing to verify as to whether consequent to issue of credit by the supplying unit to the appellant, whether any refund has been claimed by the supplying unit, chosen to cause reversal of the proportionate credit. The basis for reversal of credit was found to be wrong. In the light of the facts and circumstances narrated above, I find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reasonable and legally sustainable. No valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings and reasonings adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals).