Gujarat Gas Limited VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-i

EXCISE Appeal No. 10730 of 2013-SM

[Arising out of Order-in-Original/Appeal No CCEA-SRT-I-SSP-274-2012-13-U-S-35 dated

18.01.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, CUSTOMS (Adjudication)-SURAT-I]

 

Gujarat Gas Limited

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Surat-i

APPEARANCE :

Shri Mrugesh Pandya, Advocate for the Appellant

Shri G. Kirupanandan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: 30.01.2023

FINAL ORDER NO. A/10171/2023

RAMESH NAIR :

Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order upheld the

confirmation of demand ordered by the Adjudicating Authority in respect of

Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on CNG Dispensers. The reason given

by both the lower authorities is that, in RG23-C Part-II, the documents on

which the Cenvat credit is to be availed is mentioned, which is invoice

number and the appellant could not produce the said invoice; and second

reason, as per the authorities is that appellant have taken credit in February

2006 whereas the machines were cleared in the month of April 2006. The

authorities have denied Cenvat credit on the ground that appellant could not

establish co-relation with the bill of entry on which they have claimed receipt

of goods and installation of goods in their factory. Therefore the present

appeal is filed by the appellant.

Shri Mrugesh Pandya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submits that there is only clerical error that instead of bill of entry

number, foreign supplier’s invoice number, which is also appearing in bill of

entry mentioned in RG 23 C Part-II for the month October 2006. Since the

said invoice appeared in the bill of entry, co-relation has been established.

As regards the department’s contention that credit was taken in the month

of February 2006, he submits that this is apparently incorrect for the reason

that documents were dated as of February 2006 but the credit was taken in

October 2006. He submits that all the documents such as Bill of Entry,

installation certificate, transporters’ challan were submitted before both the

authorities but they have not considered these documents.

Shri G. Kirupanandan, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing

on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides

and perused the record. The action for denial of Cenvat credit was initiated

only on the basis that the appellant have mistakenly mentioned the foreign

supplier’s invoice number in RG 23C Part-II instead of bill of entry. The

appellant before the lower authorities have submitted the documents such

as Bill of Entry, Transporters’ Challan, Installation Certificate. On going

through these documents i.e. foreign supplier’s invoice number J168BJ1700

dated 24.02.,2006 is clearly mentioned in the bill of entry number 668712

dated 21.04.2006. The supplier invoice number though mistakenly

mentioned in the RG 23 C Part-II, the same being appeared in the bill of

entry, co-relation has been established. The transporters’ challan also

clearly shows that three numbers CNG Dispenser out of 13 numbers have

been received in the factory of the appellant. Though the installation of

machines is not a criteria for allowing Cenvat credit and Cenvat credit has to

be allowed at the relevant time only on the receipt of the goods in the

factory. Further, the appellant have also submitted Chartered Engineer

certificate dated 07.05.2009 whereby it was certified that three CNG

Dispensers bearing Model number, Serial number and Supplier’s name was

submitted to the department. On the basis of this Chartered Engineer

certificate, there is no doubt that three CNG Dispensers were received and

installed in the appellant’s factory.

On the basis of documents discussed hereinabove, I do not have any

doubt in my mind that three number dispensers were cleared by them under

bill of entry No. 668712 dated 21.04.2006 were received and installed in the

appellant’s factory. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the

appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ramesh Nair)

Member (Judicial)