The Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), while allowing an appeal filed by Jindal Texofab Ltd, has upheld a report made in 2003 made by the Superintendent as conclusive since the re-verification of documents is not possible due to lapse of time.
The appellant-Company approached the Tribunal for the second time contending that as per the tribunal remand order legal issue has been settled and only remanded for actual verification of the stock of goods lying as of 01.04.2003. they argued that the appellant had filed a declaration as required and the Range Superintendent has given his report.
As per the report, the proper verification was conducted despite this the Adjudicating Authority wanted to re-verify the entire records which are not possible after a lapse of a long time. The report is conclusive and on that basis, the Adjudicating Authority should have decided the matter.
After considering the facts in deep, the Tribunal bench comprising Judicial Member Mr. Ramesh Nair and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar held that the above order it is absolutely clear that the legal issue has been settled in the appellant’s case. The bench noted that the matter was remanded only for actual verification of the stock. We find that the appellant has filed a declaration of stock to the department which was verified by the Range Superintendent.
Allowing the plea of the appellants, the two-member bench held that the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellants since they have complied with the procedure prescribed.
“As per the above report, it can be seen that after proper verification some discrepancy was found for Rs 1, 50,250/- which was reversed by the appellant. As per the procedure, the proper stock verification was conducted by the Superintendent thereafter the Adjudicating Authority seeking further verification of all the records is unwarranted. We are of the view that the aforesaid verification report is a conclusive one, therefore; no further material is required for establishing the stock lying in the factory of the appellant as of 31.03.2004. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond the direction given by the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 19.11.2010,” the bench said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
