AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - We have heard the learned senior standing counsel for the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the learned counsel for the assessee. This appeal is against an order by which the CESTAT decided against the Revenue on an appeal filed by the department. The respondent is a manufacturer of different chemicals. They availed Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs and capital goods as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. The department issued a notice asking the respondent as to why an amount of Rs. 2,40,258/- along with penalty and interest should not be demanded from them towards ineligible Cenvat credit availed by them. The premise was that the department had noted that there were written off stores and spares worth Rs. 14.51 lakhs which was not permissible. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the matter can be ascertained only on a joint inspection. The Revenue challenged it before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on the relevant circular and held that the issue involved is regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs/capital goods and stores and spares which were written off from accounts as obsolete. It concluded that the issue is squarely covered by the decision in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2002 (50) RLT 208 (CEGAT-Ban.)]. Applying the said precedent, we find that there is no merit in this appeal.
Having considered the subject matter of the appeal in the light of the submission made and also on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Obviously, the dismissal of this appeal will not stand in the way of the right to joint inspection as aforesaid, following the decision of the First Appellate Authority.
Subject to what is stated above, this appeal is dismissed.