COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Vs. SALUJA EXIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts arise in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. We have heard at length Jt. CDR for the appellants and learned Advocates for the respondents. We have also perused the records. Both the appeals arise from a common order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh on 24 -5 -2005 whereby the orders -in -original disallowing the Cenvat credit and confirming the demand for interest and imposition of penalty have been set aside. The Joint Commissioner, Chandigarh by his order dated 6 -5 -2005 had disallowed the Cenvat credit to M/s. Saluja Exim to the extent of Rs. 15,98,385/ - and while imposing the penalty of equal amount, had also demanded interest on the amount due. The Jt. Commissioner by his another order of the same date had disallowed the credit to the extent of Rs. 19,45,955/ -while imposing penalty of equal amount and confirming the demand of interest against M/s. Saluja Exim Ltd. (now M/s. SEL Manufacturing Co. Ltd.).

(2.) By the said orders passed by the Jt. Commissioner, the credit sought to be availed by the assessees by taking resort to Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with notification No. /2003 -C.E. (N.T.), dated 10 -4 -2003 and notification No. /2003 -C.E. (N.T.), dated 17 -5 -2003 was sought to be disallowed on the ground that the inputs and the goods in respect of which the credit was sought to be availed were not lying in stock of the assessee as they were already removed from their factory premises and were lying in the port area. The Commissioner (Appeals) while setting aside the said orders held that the credit in terms of said provisions of law, was available irrespective of place where goods were stored whether in the factory premises or in godown or at some other premises and therefore, the assessees were justified in claiming the said credit and the same could not have been disallowed to them.

(3.) THE department aggrieved by the said order is in appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).