TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT], has clarified, that once there is an order by the Superior Authority, the Authorities low down in the hierarchy which may be adjudicating Authorities, are to give effect to the orders of the Authorities higher to them in the hierarchy. It is further to be noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue Authority is not in a position to controvert the assertion of the petitioner that the question involved and decided in the orders at Annexures - B, C and D were identical in the facts and in law as was being considered in the proceedings leading to the passing of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A. Normally, the Court would have remanded the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration in light of observations made - However, in the present case, if the conclusion at Annexures - B, C and D are to be made applicable with respect to the period which was subject matter of proceedings culminating in the Order-in- Original, there could be nothing more that could be done by the second respondent except in accepting the conclusion as per the orders at Annexures - B, C and D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dated 22.04.2013 for the period between 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 at Annexure- F and further, Show Cause Notice for the period 01.04.2013 to 29.02.2014 at Annexure-G were not legally tenable. The ground on which such demand for disallowance of CENVAT credit was made was that the MS Platforms were not received in the petitioner's factory. It is submitted that pursuant to proceedings under the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner availed of the opportunity of personal hearing and appeared before the Authority on 19.11.2019 and brought to the notice of the Authority regarding the earlier orders passed, including the order of the Tribunal bearing No.22219/2017 dated 22.09.2017 and had sought for dropping of the proceedings Order Number is stated to be No.22219/2017 dated 06.10.2017. It is submitted that however the Authority has proceeded to pass an order rejecting the submission of the petitioner and refusing benefit of CENVAT credit while raising a demand as detailed in the operative portion of the order at Annexure-A. 3. It is the contention of Sri. Rajesh Chanderkumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the adjudicating Authority was bound by the orders a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MS Platform was not received in the petitioner's factory, but were sent directly to the customers' site for Erection and Commissioning. Accordingly, whether for such supply of MS Platform at the site, the petitioner could claim CENVAT credit, was the point for consideration and this would come out on a reading of paragraph No.2 of the order in original at Annexure-A. Paragraph No.2 of the said order is extracted as herein below: 2. Whereas it appeared that the noticee undertakes orders from various customers for manufacture and installation of Electronic Weigh Bridge at the cutomers' site. Such electronic weigh bridge consists of (i) MS Platforms (ii) Load cell and (iii) Electronic system. The noticee imports Load Cells and Electronic components assembly in his factory and clears the same on payment of Central Excise Duty. The other component of the Electronic Weigh Bridge i.e. MS Platforms are not received in the noticee's factory but are directly sent to customers' site for Erection and Commissioning. However, the vendors/suppliers of the said item raise invoice in the name of the noticee and the noticee are availing Cenvat Credit based on the said invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the issue is no more res integra and it stands held that inputs not received directly in the factory but received at site are also cenvatable inputs and credit cannot be denied on the short ground of not bringing the inputs into the factory vide Final Order No.21205-21206/2015 dated 27.5.2015 of this Tribunal. Learned counsel for the assessee further relied upon the decision in the case of CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Central Electronics Ltd.: 2011 (271) ELT 586 wherein also it has been held that in the absence of any dispute that inputs were duty-paid, were utilized in the final product on which duty has been paid, the mere fact of non-receipt of goods in the factory but sent directly at site will not result in denial of credit to the assessee. 9. In the order in Appeal No.166/2012 at Annexure-D, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru has also considered the same aspect and finding is recorded at paragraph No.8, which is extracted herein below: 8. In view of the above findings and in the light of the Board's circular cited supra, I am inclined to hold that the appellants are eligible for the credit on MS platforms used for manufacture of weigh bridges which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 46,32,229/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine Only) relates to the period between September 2007 to August 2008. Insofar as the order at Annexure-C is concerned, the demand amounted to ₹ 28,70,807/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred Seven Only) for the period between September 2009 to June 2010, while it was ₹ 24,36,052/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Fifty Two Only) for the period between July 2010 to June 2011. As regards Annexure-D is concerned, the demand was ₹ 44,38,233/- (Rupees Forty Four Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Three Only), which was again the same amount which was the subject matter of the appeal proceedings before the Tribunal at Annexure- C. It is clear that the demands for the respective periods as noted above was beyond the monetary limit and technically there was no bar for the Authority to have filed appeals and to take up the matter before the higher adjudicating Authorities. In light of a finding of law and facts which is identical and has been a subject matter of earlier orders between the same assessee and the Department, it was not open for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
