M/s. C.P.C. (P) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 781 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 11-12-2018
Appeal No. E/329/2012 – Final Order No. 43074/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
Shri R. Balagopal, Consultant for the Appellant
Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
ORDER
Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cast articles of iron and steel and are having Central Excise registration. They are availing the facility of CENVAT credit of inputs, capital goods etc. They purchased inputs from central excise registered dealers under CENVAT credit scheme and availed the credit of such inputs. Based on intelligence, the officers visited the factory of the appellant and verified the CENVAT account and related documents. With regard to transaction with M/s. Kovai Scrap Traders, Coimbatore, a registered dealer of iron and steel scrap
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
r CI borings and the dealer had supplied CI borings. Instead of noting in the dealer's invoice the goods as CI borings, the dealer had mentioned the goods as waste and scrap. He argued that CI borings fall within the very same Tariff heading as of waste and scrap and there is no separate Tariff heading for CI borings. The goods are generally known as waste and scrap and in specific it may be known as CI borings. Since the appellant had placed purchase order for CI borings and had received CI borings, the same was noted in the MIN. Only for the difference in the description of the goods, the demand has been raised. He adverted to the relevant Tariff regarding waste and scrap under 72044900 and submitted that the rate of duty for such waste and scrap is 8%. There is no separate heading for CI borings and therefore the appellant does not gain anything by the difference in the description of the goods. With regard to the statement of Shri Selva Lakshmanan, partner, he submitted that the sa
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
aste and scrap. It is also submitted by the appellant that though they had placed purchase order for CI borings, the supplier / dealer had mentioned the goods in the invoices as 'waste and scrap'. In common parlance, CI borings would fall under waste and scrap and the Tariff heading 72044900 would apply for CI borings also. There is no different central excise duty with regard to CI borings and waste and scrap (other). On such score, I cannot find any reason for the appellant to have any intention to avail fraudulent credit. The very variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice as well as the material inward notes cannot be a ground for alleging that the appellant has availed fraudulent credit. There is no allegation with respect to the difference in quantity of the goods received. It is only with regard to the variation in the description of the goods in the dealers invoice. It is also important to note that though the department has relied upon the statement of Sh
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =