M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus CGST, CC & CE, Jabalpur
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 1264 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 3-7-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50308/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 52486/2018
Central Excise
HON'BLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON'BLE SHRI C.L. M AHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
For the Petitioner : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri N.R. Shaima, DR
ORDER
Per Anil Choudhary:
The issue involved in this appeal relates to objection by Revenue on taking of cenvat credit on the supplementary invoices, raised by M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., for supply of coal made to the appellant.
2. Coal is one of the important input of the appellant used in the manuf
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ges”, “clean energy cess” and “transit fee” in respect of coal earlier supplied by them. They had paid additional amount of duty & cess Rs. 1,62,39,182/- and taken credit in their cenvat credit register on 31.07.2014, which, it appeared, are not valid documents for availing cenvat credit in terms of Rule 9(1) (b) of the CCR, 2004.Accordingly, a show cause notice No.42/Commr/CEX/REWA/2015-16 dated 3.7.2015 was issued to the appellant and subsequently proceeding was finalized by the adjudicating authority vide order-in-original no.58/JC/CEX/JBP/2016-17 dated 28.03.2017 wherein Cenvat Credit was disallowed and ordered to recover the same along with interest and penalty.
4. Subsequently, Revenue issued another show cause notice on the ground t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sputed by the Revenue, the fact of deposit of such duty collected by SECL, with the Govt. exchequer.
5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant argues that in view of the admitted facts that the demand of duty on such charges like royalty charges, etc. is subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4056-5064/1999 (Mineral Area Development Vs. Steel Authority of India) and as such, the issue is debatable as to inclusion of aforesaid charges in the assessable value and as such, denial of cenvat credit by the Revenue on the ground of fraud, suppression is not tenable and have legs to stand.
6. Ld. AR for the Revenue have reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of both the s
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =