Commissioner of C. Ex. vs Raghav Alloys Ltd.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.—The Revenue has impugned the order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ''the Tribunal'') dated 18-9-2003, vide which the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the finding of the Commissioner (A) that the party has received the material and has claimed modvat credit on the basis of the documents supplied by the suppliers was upheld.

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection that the aforementioned order passed by the Tribunal was passed in two cases i.e. in M/s. Raghav Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. bearing EA No. 994 of 2003 and EA No. 997 of 2003, respectively. However, the Department has chosen to file appeal only in the case of M/s. Raghav Alloys Ltd. and no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. Learned Counsel submits that the fact that Revenue has chosen to file appeal only in one case, whereas the case of M/s. Raghav Alloys and M/s. Vimal Alloys were similar in nature, would lead to the inference that the Department has accepted the view of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd.

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, counsel for the appellant is unable to dispute this factual position as he is not aware whether any appeal in M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. has been filed or not challenging the order (Annexure P-3).

Keeping in view the fact that as the Tribunal has disposed of the matters relating to M/s Raghav Alloys Ltd. and M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd. by passing one single impugned order and the Revenue has chosen not to file any appeal in the case of M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd., therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the order (Annexure P-3) which the Department has already accepted qua M/s. Vimal Alloys Ltd.

In case, the statement made by counsel for the respondent is found to be incorrect, then the Department may file an application for recalling this order.

Appeal is dismissed.