F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
M/s.
Chiripal
Industries
Ltd.
(Formerly
known
as
M/s.
Chiripal
Petrochemicals Ltd.), Survey No. 199 & 200/1-2, Saijpur-Gopalpur, Pirana Road, Piplej,
Ahmedabad (here-in-after referred as ‘the assessee’) having Central Excise
Registration No. AAACC 8513B XM001 were engaged in the manufacture of Polyester
Yarn, Man Made Knitted Fabrics, Flock Fabrics & Paper Tube falling under Chapter
Heading Nos. 5402, 6001, 5907 & 4822 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 respectively. The assessee was also engaged in the manufacture of the
commodities falling under Chapter Nos. 29, 34, 38, 39, 52 & 55 of the First Schedule to
the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2.
The assessee was availing Cenvat Credit under Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCR, 2004’ for short) and has availed Cenvat
credit of Service tax paid on the GTA Service for the clearance of their finished goods.
During the course of audit of the records of the assessee it was noticed that during the
period of June, 2005 to April, 2007 the assessee had paid service tax on outward freight
total amounting to Rs.9,04,398/- and subsequently, they had taken service tax credit of
the same on 29.9.2009, on the said outward freight vide RG 23A Pt.II Entry No. 382 to
403 all dated 29.9.2009, which was almost three to four years back. It was further
observed that this service was not covered under the definition of the term “input
service”, as given at Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It appeared that the
service tax credit is admissible upto the ‘place of removal’ only. Therefore, the Cenvat
credit of Rs.9,04,398/- availed on outward freight for sales appeared to be inadmissible.
3.
On the basis of the Audit Report, the jurisdictional Superintendent had
initiated an inquiry with the assessee and called the required information, details of duty
paying documents, copies of Challans, etc. vide his letter bearing F.No. AR-III/CIL/AR223/2009-10 dated 3.6.2010 and Reminder dated 23.6.2010. In response to the same,
the assessee, vide their letter No. CIL/ST/2010-2011 dated 29.6.2010 submitted selfcertified photocopies of TR-6 Challans and Challan-wise particulars of service tax
payment on outward freight. On the basis of the documents submitted by the assessee,
the jurisdictional Central Excise officers worked out the amount of Cenvat credit wrongly
taken as Rs.9,04,398/-. The service tax was paid on GTA service during the period
of September,2005 to May,2007 and the assessee had taken Cenvat credit thereof
vide RG 23A Pt.II Entry Nos. 382 to 403 all dated 29.9.2009.
4.
The relevant provisions governing admissibility of Cenvat credit of service
tax to the manufacturer are discussed as under. (emphasis supplied)
3
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
(i)
Clause (xviaa) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944,
authorizes the Central Government to make Rules for providing credit of service
tax leviable under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, paid or payable on
taxable services used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of excisable
goods.
(ii)
Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, also allows a
manufacturer to take credit of Service Tax paid on input services received by the
manufacturer for use in, or in relation to, the manufacturer of final product,
on or after the 10th day of September, 2004.
(iii)
Sub-Rule (l) of Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, defines the terms “input
service”, which is given as under:
“input service” means any service
(i)
used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or
(ii)
used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation
to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products upto
the place of removal,
and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation or
repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to
such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research,
storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to
business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control,
coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and
security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward
transportation upto place of removal.”
(iv)
Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, defines the term “place of
removal” as under:
“place of removal” means (i)
a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacturer of
the excisable goods;
(ii)
a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods
have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty;
(iii)
a deport, premises of a consignment agent, or any other place or
premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their
clearance from the factory;
from where such goods are removed.”
In view of the above mentioned statutory provisions, it was observed that the
taxable services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products and
4
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
clearance of final products upto the place of removal only are eligible for Cenvat
credit as input service.
5.
In the instant case, the service of Goods Transport Agency (‘GTA’ for
short) had been availed for outward transportation of goods from the factory premises.
Further, the assessee had cleared the goods under cover of a Tax invoices/Retail
invoices. Deliveries of the goods were given to a transporter at the factory gate itself.
Thus, sale of goods is affected at the factory. The ownership of the goods was passed
on to the buyers at factory gate by way of issue of invoices. Further, this is not the case
where the assessee is having their own depot and affected clearances from factory to
depot.
In this case, the assessee has sold the goods on factory gate itself and
therefore, the factory is the ‘place of removal’ as defined at Section 4(2)(c) of the
Central Excise Act, 1944, made applicable to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 under Rule 2(t)
thereof. In this case, the GTA service has been availed beyond the place of removal.
Further, the said services are not used in or in relation to manufacture of final products.
Therefore, Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA service for outward transportation
of the goods did not appear to be admissible.
6.
In view of the above discussion, It was observed that the assessee had
wrongly taken total Cenvat Credit of Rs.9,04,398/- [Cenvat of Rs.8,86,657/- + Edu. Cess
of Rs.17,741/-] vide RG23A Pt.II Entry No.382 to 403 all dated 29.09.2009 on the
strength of service tax Challans for the period September 2005 to May 2007.
They
had taken and utilized the said credit of Service Tax. It appears that the GTA service,
availed for the clearances from the factory premises, is not covered under the definition
of the term “Input Service” as provided in Rule 2(l) of CCR,2004, and therefore Cenvat
credit of service tax paid on such outward freight is not admissible in view of the
provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 37(2)(xviaa)
of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as discussed hereinabove.
7.
In view of the above, the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.9,04,398/-
appeared to be wrongly availed by the assessee and the credit so availed is required to
be recovered along with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 read
with Section 11A and Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act,1944.
8.
It was observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule
2(l) read with Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, by wrongly availing Cenvat
credit on the services, which were not falling under the definition of ‘input service’. All
these acts of contravention on the part of the assessee have rendered themselves liable
for penal action under Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as prevailing during
the date of wrongly availing credit, i.e. on 29.9.2009, and saved by Section 38A of the
Central Excise Act, 1944.
5
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
9.
Therefore, M/s. Chiripal Industries Ltd., Saijpur-Gopalpur, Pirana Road,
Piplej, Ahmedabad, were issued the Show Cause Notice bearing F.No.V.29/1525/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11 dated 18.08.2010 wherein they were called-upon to show cause
as to why :
(i)
Cenvat Credit to the tune of Rs.9,04,398/- [Cenvat of Rs.8,86,657/- +
Edu. Cess of Rs.17,741/-] should not be demanded and recovered from
them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section
11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(ii)
Interest at the prescribed rate should not be charged and recovered from
them under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the
Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
(iii)
Penalty under the provisions of Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004 [as prevailing on the date of wrongly availing Cenvat credit, i.e.
29.9.2009 and saved by Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944]
should not be imposed upon them.
DEFENCE REPLY:
10.
The assessee submitted their defence reply dated 27.09.2010 to the Show
Cause Notice under which they stated that the SCN has been issued mainly on the
ground that on 29-09-2009 the assessee has taken credit of Service Tax paid by TR-6
Challan during the month of June 2005 to April 2007 on GTA services in respect of the
"outward Freight charges"; that credit of service tax paid by TR-6 Challan on GTA
Services is admissible as "Input Service" only up to the place of removal; that the
assessee has cleared goods under cover of Tax Invoices/Retail Invoices and delivery of
the goods was given at the factory gate only; that the sale had been affected at factory
gate only and ownership of the goods was passed on to the buyers at factory gate; that
hence the assessee is not eligible to take credit of service tax paid on outward
transportation of goods from factory; that SCN has alleged contravention of the
provisions of Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which allows Cenvat Credit of
the Service Tax paid on "input Service" on GTA up to place of removal; that the SCN
has wrongly relied upon this provision and presumed that 'the manufacturer' is not
eligible to take credit of Service Tax paid on outward freight beyond place of removal;
that thus, the credit of Service Tax rightly taken is proposed to be denied for these
presumption without authority of law or having any justifiable reason.
11.1
They further stated that such assumption or presumption has no place
while implementing a facilitation scheme in its totality as provided under the CENVAT
Credit Rules, 2004; that they referred to the definition of "input service" prevailing during
6
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
the period from June 2005 to April 2007 as provided in Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit
Rules 2004 which is reproduced as under:-
2(1) "input service" means any service,
(i)
used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or
(ii)
used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to
the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of
removal, and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation
or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such
factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto
the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as
accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training,
computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of
inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal;
11.2
The Rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 clearly provide that a
manufacturer shall be allowed to take credit of Service Tax paid on any "input service"
as CENVAT Credit. The Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 further provide
that CENVAT Credit may be utilised for payment of duty of excise on any final product
or service tax on output service. These are the governing provisions in the CENVAT
Scheme. However, there is no scope for interpreting technical meaning of words &
phrases used in Rules to deny CENVAT Credit in respect of the service tax paid on
"input service", which is a substantive benefit available to the manufacturer, particularly
when such Service Tax is paid by the unit on "input service". When the prime
requirement mentioned above is fully satisfied, the Cenvat Credit can not be denied, as
proposed in this SCN. They also submitted that a manufacturer is fastened with liability
to pay Service Tax in respect of transportation of goods by road by GTA, but he is not
made liable to pay any additional duty/tax burden of the GTA. If the manufacturer pays
such Service tax in respect of transportation of goods by road by GTA through TR-6
Challan, he has been made eligible to take Cenvat Credit of such service tax paid by
him on behalf of the GTA. The law solely requires a person liable to pay service tax as
per Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, to make such a payment of Service Tax, it
is his option to pay service tax either from the cenvat Credit available to them or to pay
by TR-6 Challan and then take credit thereof.
11.3
The SCN has also presumed that credit of service tax is not available as
the amount of service tax has been paid for outward transportation of goods from the
factory and there is no input service involved in the said transactions. This allegation is
not sustainable, as for availing credit definition of 'input service' given above is clearly
covers such activity.
7
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
11.4
The Rule 3(1) allows manufacturer or producer of final products or
provider of output service to take Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty/Service Tax on
"Input" or Capital goods" or "Input Service" received/utilized by manufacturer of final
product on or after 10-9-2004.
11.5
The assessee is manufacturer of dutiable final products and is also eligible
to take credit of service tax paid on "input service" received or utilized. However, as they
are not providing any taxable services, but we are made liable for payment of Service
Tax on services received from Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) as per Rule 2(l)(d)(v)
of Service Tax Rules.
12.
They also submitted that when a deeming fiction is created by virtue of the
Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, as recipient is made liable to pay service tax;
that the assessee submit to give full effect to such fiction created by law, as per decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 1993(68)ELT-9(SC) in the case of UOI v/s Jalyan
Udyog.
13.
They also submitted that the definitions of "Input services" and "output
services" under Rule 2(i) and 2(p) have been amended vide CENVAT Credit
(Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1-3-2008 vide Notification No. 10/2008-CE(NT) dt. 1-32008, which are reproduced for ready reference :-
"In the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in rule 2,
(i)
in clause (l), for the words "clearance of final products from the place of removal",
the words "clearance of final products, upto the place of removal," shall be substituted;
(ii)
in clause (p), for the words "any taxable service provided by the provider of
taxable service", the words "any taxable service, excluding the taxable service referred
to in sub-clause (zzp) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided by the
provider of taxable service" shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of March,
2008."
The above amendment also provides that "Save as otherwise provided in these rules,
they shall come into force on the 1 st day of April, 2008". Thus, these amendments to
Cenvat Credit Rules clearly show the words "from the place of removal have been
substituted with the words "upto the place of removal" only w.e.f. 1-3-2008.
14.
They further stated that the SCN was mainly on the grounds that the Input
service credit was available for the removal of goods upto the place of removal.
However, such amendment is w.e.f. 1-3-2008 only and the amended provision cannot
be applied in respect of period prior to such amendment. The law prior to 1-3-2008 has
8
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
been crystallized by the Hon'ble CESTAT larger Bench in the above mentioned
decision.
15.
The assessee also submitted that Cenvat Credit was taken for the period
upto 9-5-2007 vide RG 23A pt II Entry No.382 to 403 all dated 29-09-2009 only after
such availability of the credit is finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble
CESTAT as reported at 2009(15)STR-23(tri-LB) in the case of ABB Ltd v/s CCE,
Banglore wherein it has been clearly held that the credit of Service tax paid on 'outward
transportation' cannot be denied. Bench conclusively held that definition of 'input
service' has to be interpreted in light of requirements of business and it cannot be read
restrictively so as to confine only upto the factory or upto the place of removal of the
manufacturers.
16.
This view is also followed in similar cases wherein the Hon'ble CESTAT
has held as under:
(i) 2009 (161 S.T.R. 701 (Tri. -.Ahmd.) of CCE, Ahmedabad v/s Fine Care Biosystems
"Cenvat credit of Service tax - Outward freight - Credit of Service tax admissible in
respect of Service tax paid on goods transportation charges for outward freight for export
of goods - Rule 2(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal-LB)
followed.]"
(ii) 2010 (250) E.L.T. 557 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - KANDOI FABRICS PVT. LTD.v/s CCE.
Cenvat credit of Service tax - Goods Transport Agency Service - Outward
transportation of final product from factory - Credit admissible as per Tribunal's
Larger Bench decision in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal-LB) - Rules 2(1) and 14
of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 1, 5]
Appeals allowed
(iii)2010 (17) S.T.R. 276 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - DAMAN POLYFAB v/s CCE, Vapi
Cenvat credit of Service tax - Input service - Outward transportation of final
product from factory to customer's premises - Issue settled by Tribunal's Larger
Bench in 2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal-LB) - Impugned order set aside - Rules
2(l) and 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 2]
Appeals allowed
(iv) 2010 (250) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Ahmd.)-Mahindra Sar Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v/s
CCE; Cenvat credit of Service tax - Input services - Outward transportation Larger Bench of Tribunal in ABB Ltd. [2009 (15) S.T.R. 23 (Tribunal-LB)] held
that such credit admissible - Issue no longer res integra-Credit admissible-Rule
2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 3]
Appeal allowed
9
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
Accordingly, in view of the above mentioned decisions the law is established that
when they have discharged such service tax liability under TR-6, they were also
eligible to take credit of such payments made for GTA Service as "input Service".
17.
Assessee also submitted that when a deeming fiction is created by virtue
of the Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, as recipient is made liable to pay service
tax. The assessee submit to give full effect to such fiction created by law, as per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 1993(68)ELT-9(SC) in the case of UOI
v/s Jalyan Udyog.
18.
Assessee also submitted that when there is no justification for demand of
duty, the proposal to impose penalty and charge interest are not sustainable. The
assessee rely upon decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court reported at 1978 (2) E.L.T.
(J 159) (SC) and request to take a justifiable lenient view and drop the proposed
penalties
Thus, pre-requisite condition for availing any credit is fully satisfied. The
requirement is payment of service tax on input service used for clearance of final
products from the place of removal and credit of service tax paid on such inputs service
can be taken. Accordingly, here also service tax is paid by TR-6 for clearance of final
products from the place of removal. Therefore, credit of Service Tax paid is not
deniable, particularly, when Service Tax payment is not under any dispute, substantive
benefit can not be denied.
19.
They further stated as follows:
1)
Under the general definition 2(l) of "input service" in Sr. No.(ii) "any service used
by the manufacturer in relation to clearance of final products from the place of
removal" is eligible for input service credit.
2)
Transportation of goods from the place of removal to the buyers premises
remains covered by the expression "Clearance from the place of removal" and
thus, input service credit is specifically provided for in respect of service tax paid
on transport of final products to the buyers. It all depends on the business
transactions between seller and buyers. If the consignor has borne the freight, he
is eligible for the credit of such service tax paid and if the consignee has paid the
service tax, they would be eligible for the service tax credit. However, in the
present case the delivery of the final products was to be given at the buyer's
place. Therefore, when the "manufacturer' has paid the freight charges to the
'transporter', the manufacturer is eligible to take credit of such service tax paid.
3)
that mention of 'outward transportation upto the place of removal' in inclusion
clause of the definition does not have any effect on our claim in terms of the main
10
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
definition of "input service', which has specifically provided availability/eligibility of
credit for clearance of final products from the place of removal,
4)
That an inclusion clause cannot restrict the scope of the main definition in the
Statute.
5)
that the inclusion clause makes the scope of input service credit broad by
including a larger number of services which are only indirectly or remotely
connected to manufacture, such as activities relating to business, accounting,
marketing, advertisement, sales promotion etc.
6)
that the provision for input service credit in relation to clearance should also be
allowed in its broadest scope.
7)
that the main clause in the definition clearly provides that the service in regard to
which credit of service tax is available, should be used in or in relation to
clearance of the final products from the place of removal. In the present case,
services of transporters have been used for clearance of final products from the
place of removal. Therefore, when the manufacturer has paid the transportation
charges and service tax by TR-6 Challan in respect of the services of
transporters, the credit of service tax paid is "input service' which has been rightly
taken by the manufacturer.
8)
that a statute may be read as a whole and words used may be interpreted to
promote the scheme and not to defeat Cenvat scheme taking into account the
context in which they are used. The scheme is to levy service tax on
"transportation of goods' and to provide credit of such service tax to manufacturer
who pays such service tax on behalf of "transporter'-GTA. However, a
manufacturer who pays service tax on behalf of the 'transporters-GTA' cannot be
made to suffer more by not allowing him the credit of such service tax paid by
TR-6 Challan. Thus, the present SCN is depriving the manufacturer of his due
right to avail credit of service tax paid by him on behalf of 'transporters'. If
transporter pays the service tax and issues his Invoice including service tax, the
manufacturer who receives Invoice including service tax, would be eligible to take
credit of such service tax paid by them on the basis of such Invoice at par with
the Invoices in respect of 'Inputs' or 'Capital Goods', therefore, when they have
paid service tax, they are eligible to take credit thereof to avoid cascading effect
of the Service Tax paid on such services of GTA.
9)
the definition of "place of removal" while analyzing the availability of cenvat credit
of service tax paid on the outward transportation from "place of removal". The
inclusive part of definition in clause ii of Rule 2 (I) which defines "input service"
illustrates just that "it is inclusive which includes all activities relating to business
".
10)
that when this rule is examined harmoniously with the definition of "place of
removal" it clearly makes a case for allowing cenvat credit of service tax paid on
transportation of goods not only upto the place of removal but also from the place
of removal.
11
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
11)
that an imaginative barrier cannot be imposed on availability of credits of service
tax paid under TR-6 Challan by manufacturer like us for transportation for
clearances from places of removal when there is no such intention in the CEA or
the CCR.
12)
that the very object of CENVAT scheme is to avoid cascading effect of service
tax/duty payments. SCN has not appreciated spirit and object of Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004. The scheme fundamentally provides to take the credit of Service
Tax paid on inputs, Capital Goods and Input Services used directly or indirectly in
or in relation to manufacture of other final products and clearance of final
products from the place of removal. Therefore, credit of such Service Tax paid by
the manufacturer on 'input services' cannot be denied as proposed in this SCN.
13)
that as per Rule 2(l)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules the 'Goods Transport Agency'
(GTA), the consignor or consignee of various categories [(a) to (h)] who pays or
is liable to pay freight for the transportation of such goods by road in goods
carriage. Accordingly, they have paid service tax under TR-6 Challan. Hence,
when they have paid the said service tax in cash for services used, its credit
cannot be denied to them, as proposed in SCN. They have correctly taken
Cenvat Credit for "input service".
14)
that all the prime requirements to take cenvat credit have been fully satisfied in
this case. The law has been established and settled that substantive benefit
available otherwise, cannot be denied on technical reasons, as proposed in this
SCN. Therefore, the credit of service tax paid cannot be denied as proposed in
the SCN.
15)
that they have not contravened provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with
any intention to evade duty/tax. This is pure question of interpretation of law and
there cannot be any penalty for such a difference of opinion.
20.
In connection to proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15(3) of the
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they submitted that such penalty is applicable only in a
case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services
has been taken or utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of these
rules or of the Finance Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment
of service tax, then, the provider of output service shall also be liable to pay penalty in
terms of the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act; that however, there is no such
element existing in the present case requiring imposition of any penalty; that element of
penalty is attached with malafide intention, which requires positive willful action with
intention to evade payment of duty/tax; that the prime condition required to impose
penalty is not existing in the present case; that this is a pure question of interpretation of
provisions of the law and in such situations allegations of intention to evade payment of
duty/tax cannot be attributed; that they have no central excise duty/tax liability, as
proposed; that they have not contravened provision of Cenvat Credit Rules; that
12
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
accordingly, they were not required to pay any central excise duty/tax as demanded
vide the present SCN and that they are not liable for any proposed penal liability under
Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004; that this is solely a bonafide legal dispute
about interpretation of provisions of law and where there is no malafide intention
involved, the question of penalty is not justified or will not survive; that thus, when no
positive willful action with intention to evade payment of duty/tax are existing, the law
has been legally settled by now in decision which is followed in many other reported and
unreported cases, holding that no penalty is imposable u/s 11 AC of the Act; that
therefore, the entire base for demand is totally incorrect, erroneous and illegal.
21.
They relied upon the following judgements;
(i) 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.) - HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.
Penalty for technical breaches. -No penalty should be imposed for technical or
venial breach of legal provisions or where the breach flows from the bona-fide
belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute,
[para 7]
(ii) 2008 (232) E.L.T. 621 (Tri. - Ahmd.)- WIPTECH PERIPHERALS PVT. LTD.
Penalty - Imposition of- Dispute relating to interpretation of provisions of
law - No justification for imposition of penalty - Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004. [para 4]
(iii) 2010 (250) E.L.T. 260 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - PREM FABRICATORS
Penalty - Imposition of- Bona fide belief about eligibility to exemption and dispute
involving interpretation of law - No penalty imposable under Section 11AC of
Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 16]
(iv)
2009(240)E.L.T.661(S.C.)-CCE
v/s
Gujarat
Narmada
Fertilizers
Co.
Ltd.Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Wrong availment of credit on inputs used as fuel in
manufacture of exempted goods- Litigation arisen on interpretation of Cenvat
Credit Rules on account of various conflicting decisions given by various
Benches of CESTAT -Rules not properly drafted - Penalty not imposable - Rule
13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.[para 13]
(v) 2009 (237) E.L. T.A102 (S.C.)J- Commissioner v. Nestle India Ltd Penalty not
imposable in case of interpretation of Tariff entries vis-a-vis exemption
notification
(vi) 2004 (163) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - Bang.)- ITEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v/s
CCE,Penalty - Imposition of - Question of interpretation of law - Penalty not
imposable under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - No reasons given
13
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
for imposition of penalty under Rules 173Q and 210 of erstwhile Central Excise
Rules, 1944 - Penalty set aside. [para 7(g)]
PERSONAL HEARING:
22.
Personal hearing in this matter was held on 29.04.2011 which was
attended by Shri P.P.JADEJA, Authorized Representative and Shri NileshKumar Banke,
Authorised Signatory of M/s. Chiripal Industries Ltd. They re-iterated the argument
already submitted in their written reply to the Show Cause Notice, dated 27.09.2011,
which was received on 11.10.2011 in the office.
DISCUSSION & FINDINGS:
23.1.
I have carefully gone through the facts of the case as well as oral and
written submissions made by the assessee. The issue to be examined in the matter is
whether the assessee can avail the cenvat credit of the amount of the service tax paid
by them on the outward freight charges or not?
23.2.
The term “input service” as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, 2004 up to
31/03/2008 read as under:
(l)
"input service" means any service,-
(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or
(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to
the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the
place of removal,
and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation
or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office
relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market
research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities
relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and
quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating,
share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods
and outward transportation upto the place of removal;
23.3
Vide Notification No. 10/2008 CE (NT) dated 01/03/2008, with effect from
01/04/2008, the above definition was amended as under:
(l)
"input service" means any service,-
14
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
(i) used by a provider of taxable service for providing an output service; or
(ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to
the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products up to the
place of removal,
and includes services used in relation to setting up, modernization, renovation
or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office
relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market
research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities
relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and
quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating,
share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods
and outward transportation upto the place of removal;
23.4
Though the term "Place of removal" is not defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004, in Section 4 (3} (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is defined as follows:
(c)
(i)
“place of removal” – means
factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the
excisable goods;
(ii) warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have
been permitted to be deposited without [payment of duty;]
(iii) depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from
where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory;
from where such goods are removed;
24.
The above mentioned definition of “input service” is of two parts viz. main
part and inclusive part. From the said definition of “input service” existing prior to
01/04/2008 and amended with effect from 01/04/2008, it is crystal clear that specifically
the “outward transportation upto the place of removal” was only covered under the
inclusive part of said definition both prior to and after the amendment.
25.
In the instant case on hand, it is beyond dispute that outward freight
services were utilized by the assessee for removal of the goods from their factory.
Thus, it cannot be said that these services have been used by the assessee, directly or
indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products or clearance of final
products upto the place of removal, in as much as the place of removal was factory
gate in this case, as defined under Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act,1944.
15
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
Since the credit of input services i.e. outward transportation availed in or in relation to
the clearance upto the place of removal is only admissible, the said services availed by
the assessee does not qualify to be input service and credit of service tax paid on such
services is not admissible.
26.
In the present case, the assessee is preparing an invoice in the name of
their buyers, thereby indicating a Sales transaction. It is not a situation where the goods
are first cleared from the factory and a buyer identified subsequently. If the goods are
cleared to a premise first from where they are to be sold on identifying a buyer, it can
well be the place of removal. But having cleared the goods under an invoice, this
cannot be the situation. Therefore, the factory gate would be the place of removal in
this case.
27.
The said assessee had contended that the cenvat credit in question pertains to
the period June 2005 to April’2007 which they have availed on 29/09/2009. They
further submitted that the main part of the above referred definition of “input service”
was amended with effect from 01/04/2008 which is not applicable in their case. In this
regard, I find that as discussed in Para 24 above, it is apparent that “outward
transportation up to the place of removal” was specifically covered under the said
definition both prior to and after its amendment. Notwithstanding the said fact, I also
find that the said assessee had availed cenvat credit in question on 29/09/2009, as on
when even the main part of definition of “input service” was amended to restrict the
input services used in or in relation to the clearance of final products up to place of
removal.
28.
The assessee had further contended that the mention of “outward transportation
upto the place of removal in inclusive part of the definition does not have effect on their
claim in terms of the main definition of “input service”. They also stated that an
inclusion clause cannot restrict scope of the main definition in the Statute. In this
regard, on going through the definition of ‘input service’ as defined under Rule 2(l) of
CCR, 2004, as depicted here-in-above, I find that the inclusive part of the definition of
'input service' specifically restricts outward transportation up to the place of
removal. If the expression used in Rule 2(l)(ii) is assumed to cover the services used
beyond the place of removal, the specific restriction imposed regarding 'up to the place
of removal" in the inclusive part of the definition would appear redundant. It is not
permissible to assume that the legislature has used expressions, redundant in the
definition clause. In the case of M/s Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd Vs Collector of
Central Excise, reported in 1990 {47} ELT 491 (SC), relying on the Parle Exports and
Tata Oil Mills cases, the Apex Court held that ‘in interpreting the scope of any
notification, the Court has first to keep in mind the object and purpose of the
Notification. All parts of it should be read harmoniously in aid of, and not in derogation
of that purpose'.
29.
The assessee in support of their contentions had relied upon following case laws:
16
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
(i)
2009(15)STR-23(tri-LB) in the case of ABB Ltd v/s CCE, Banglore
(ii)
2009 (161 S.T.R. 701 (Tri. -.Ahmd.) of CCE, Ahmedabad v/s Fine Care Biosystems
(iii)
2010 (250) E.L.T. 557 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - KANDOI FABRICS PVT. LTD.v/s CCE.
(iv)
2010 (17) S.T.R. 276 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - DAMAN POLYFAB v/s CCE, Vapi.
(v)
2010 (250) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Ahmd.)-Mahindra Sar Transmission Pvt. Ltd. v/s CCE;
30.
In this regard, I find that in the present case under consideration, there is
no dispute that the place of removal is the factory gate. Place of removal being well
defined which admits no extension of meaning as held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the
case of Ultratech Cement Limited V/s CCE, Bhavnagar, reported in 2007 (6) STR
364 (Tri-Ahmd), that all activities relating to business, used by the manufacturer in
relation to the manufacture of final product and clearance of the final product up to the
place of removal alone are eligible for input credit. Once the final products are cleared
from the place of removal, there is no scope for subsequent use of service to be treated
as input.
31.
Further, the Hon’ble CESTAT in the case of M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cements
Ltd. vs CCE, Ludhiana AIT-2007-151-CESTAT [2007 (006) STR 0249 Tri-D] has
observed that the post sale transport of manufactured goods is not an input for the
manufacturer/consignor. The two clauses in the definition of ‘input services’ take care to
circumscribe input credit by stating that service used in relation to the clearance from
the place of removal and service used for outward transportation upto the place of
removal are to be treated as input service. The first clause does not mention transport
service in particular. The second clause restricts transport service credit upto the place
of removal. When these two clauses are read together, it becomes clear that transport
service credit cannot go beyond transport upto the place of removal. The two clauses,
the one dealing with general provision and other dealing with a specific item, are not to
be read disjunctively so as to bring about conflict to defeat the laws’ scheme. The
purpose of interpretation is to find harmony and reconciliation among the various
provisions. This observation of the Hon’ble CESTAT was also adhered to by the CBEC
in their Master Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23/8/2007 issued from F.No. 137/85/2007CX-4 as regards procedural issues in Service Tax while clarifying the specific issue as
to “up to what stage a manufacturer/consignor can take credit on the service tax paid on
goods transport by road?”.
32.
I further find that the main part of the definition of "input service" under
Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 deals with services used in the manufacture or
clearance of final product. Any service used in the manufacture or clearance of final
products is easily identifiable, whereas any service used in relation to the manufacture
and clearance of final products requires to be determined, for which a "relation" whether direct or indirect, proximate or remote - has to be established between the
service and the activity of manufacture or clearance, as the case may be. The services
17
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
specified in the inclusive part of the definition of "input service" pertain to activities
performed either in relation to manufacture of final products or in relation to clearance of
such goods. They can, definitely, be of aid to the determination of the scope of
expression, "in relation to", used in the main part of the definition. In so far as the
outward transportation services are concerned, the inclusive part of the definition is
restrictive as it permits considering only those outward transportation services utilized
up to the place of removal as input service. The scope of the expression "in relation to
clearance of final products", used in the main part of the definition of the "input service"
vide rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, must be understood as circumscribed by this
limiting factor.
33.
The Input services, in the case of a manufacturer are those services,
which are used in or in relation to manufacture and clearance, which include services in
relation to various things explained in the inclusive part of the input service definition.
Business expenses could be many and varied and the Cenvat Scheme as it is currently
worded do not provide for set off of all taxes involved on such business expenses. The
input service tax credit can be extended only in respect of those input services which
are clearly provided in the said definition. The outward transportation upto the place of
removal is specifically mentioned in the said definition of “input service” as discussed in
foregoing paras. Therefore, I find that the outward transportation services used beyond
place of removal can not be termed as ‘input service’.
34.
In connection to proposal to impose penalty under Rule 15(3) of the
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, they submitted that such penalty is applicable only in a
case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services
has been taken or utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of these
rules or of the Finance Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment
of service tax; that however, there is no such element existing in the present case
requiring imposition of any penalty. They also submitted that this is solely a bonafide
legal dispute about interpretation of provisions of law and where there is no malafide
intention involved, the question of penalty is not justified or will not survive. In support of
their contention they relied upon the following judgments;
(i) 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 159) (S.C.) - HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.
(ii) 2008 (232) E.L.T. 621 (Tri. - Ahmd.)- WIPTECH PERIPHERALS PVT. LTD.
(iii) 2010 (250) E.L.T. 260 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - PREM FABRICATORS
(iv) 2009 (240) E.L.T. 661 (S.C.) -CCE v/s Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd.
(v) 2009 (237) E.L. T.A102 (S.C.)J- Commissioner v. Nestle India Ltd
(vi) 2004 (163) E.L.T. 219 (Tri. - Bang.)- ITEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. v/s CCE.
18
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
35.
In this regard, I find that decisions mentioned at Sr. No. (iii) & (vi) above
pertains to imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the C.Ex. Act, 1944 and the
decision mentioned at Sr. No. (v) above pertain to the imposition of penalty in case of
interpretation of Tarrif Entries. Thus, the reliance placed by the assesee on these
decisions is not applicable in this case. Notwithstanding the said facts, I further find that
the assessee did not inform the department that they were taking Cenvat Credit of
Service Tax paid on the outward transportation services availed beyond the factory
gate. The said facts were neither mentioned in their periodical returns as the assessee
had just mentioned in their periodical return the gross Cenvat Credit of the said Service
Tax they have availed and subsequently utilized for the payment of the Central Excise
Duty. The assessee never specified the nature of input services for which they have
availed the Cenvat Credit. Thus it was not possible for the scrutinizing officer to detect
the nature of the input services. The assessee has thus, suppressed from the
department, the nature of input services availed by them and took Cenvat Credit of
Service Tax in respect of the said services which had been actually availed beyond the
factory gate. During the course of the audit of financial records of the assessee, the
dept. came to know about the said facts. Thus, it is obvious that the assessee has
suppressed the vital facts regarding availment of Cenvat Credit on services which did
not qualify as input services. It goes without saying that had the assessee not been
audited, department could have never known about the wrong availment of such huge
amount of Cenvat Credit on the ineligible services utilized by the said assessee beyond
their factory gate.
36.
Besides, I find that the Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004,
stipulates that the burden of proof regarding admissibility of Cenvat Credit shall lie upon
the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit. Thus in this era of self
assessment, the onus of taking legitimate Cenvat credit lies on the assessee in terms of
the aforesaid Rule, which means before taking credit assessee had to ensure its
admissibility. In the present case, I further find that despite knowing very well that the
services in respect of which they had availed Cenvat credit were those services, availed
beyond the factory gate, the assessee intentionally availed the Cenvat Credit of the
Service Tax paid on such services. This clearly proves the malafide intention on the part
of the said assessee to avail inadmissible Cenvat Credit.
37.
I find that as discussed at length in the foregoing paras, the assessee has
suppressed the vital facts regarding taking of Cenvat Credit on services which did not
qualify as ‘input services’. In the present case, I find that it was very well known to the
said assessee that the services in respect of which they have taken Cenvat Credit were
the services availed beyond the factory gate and despite of knowing that the same have
been availed beyond the factory gate, the assessee availed the Cenvat Credit of the
19
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
Service Tax paid on such services. I find that there was unambiguous suppression of
facts and inaction on the part of the said assessee.
38.
Therefore, it is concluded that the assessee had wrongly availed Cenvat
credit on service tax paid on outward transportation beyond factory gate. I have no
disbelief to say that outward transportation beyond place of removal cannot be termed
as “Input Services”. It also undoubtedly emerges from the facts & records placed before
me that while wrongly availing / utilizing Cenvat Credit during the period in question, the
said assessee had neither submitted any document / information to the department nor
disclosed any fact relevant to the issue. I find that the said assessee has not informed
the details of the wrongly taken Cenvat credit of Service Tax and utilization thereof, to
the department, with intent to utilize the same towards payment of Central Excise
duties, which otherwise, they had to pay in cash from their Personal Ledger Accounts
and hence wilfully suppressed the material facts. Hence imposition of penalty is very
well justified and warranted in this case.
39.
Further, I find that in case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of
Central Excise, New Delhi - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 618 (Tri. - Del.), Hon’ble CEGAT,
Northern Bench, New Delhi, held that penalty imposable on assessee, having not acted
in a bona fide manner. The case law, supra, is squarely applicable in the instant case
also. In the instant case, admittedly, the Cenvat Credit had been taken by the assessee
of a huge amount in contravention of the provisions of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004 read with Rule 2(l) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. They have also
contravened the provisions of Rule 9(6) and 9(7) of the CCR, 2004. Hence having taken
the credit wrongly and improperly, as the same was not permissible to them under the
law; the penalty deserves to be imposed upon the assessee.
40.
In view of the foregoing facts, I find that the assessee has not declared the
particulars and nature of the services availed by them and they have not informed to
Central Excise Department about availment of Cenvat credit on the said services but,
the facts came to the knowledge of Department at the time of Audit of records of the
factory premise of assessee. I find that the assessee has suppressed the material facts
with intent to wrongly avail Cenvat credit in contravention of the provisions of Rules
2(l)(ii), read with Rule 3(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the provisions of Rule
9(6) and Rule 9(7) of CCR, 2004 and the credit wrongly taken by them is required to be
recovered from them with interest under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004 read with the provisions of Section 11A(1) and Section 11AB of the Central
Excise Act, 1944.
Further, all these acts of contravention constitute offence of the
nature and type as described above and the assessee has rendered themselves liable
for penal action under Rule 15(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
20
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
41.
The assessee has contended that penalty under Rule 15(3) is applicable
only in a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input
services has been taken or utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful
mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of these
rules. Notwithstanding the facts discussed in the above Paras regarding suppression of
facts on part of the assessee and they having not acted in a bonafide manner, I first
reproduce the provisions of Rule 15 of the CCR, 2004, as existed up to the date
26/2/2010, which are as under (emphasis supplied):
“15. Confiscation and penalty.(1) If any person, takes CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods,
wrongly or in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules in respect of
any input or capital goods, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation
and such person, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on the
excisable goods in respect of which any contravention has been committed, or
two thousand rupees, whichever is greater.
(2) In a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods has
been taken or utilized wrongly on account of fraud, willful mis-statement,
collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the
Excise Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty,
then, the manufacturer shall also be liable to pay penalty in terms of the
provisions of section 11AC of the Excise Act.
(3) If any person, takes CENVAT credit in respect of input services, wrongly or
in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules in respect of any input
service, then, such person, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to an
amount not exceeding two thousand rupees.
(4) In a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input services has been
taken or utilized wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement,
suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Finance Act
or of the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of service
tax, then, the provider of output service shall also be liable to pay penalty in
terms of the provisions of section 78 of the Finance Act.
(5) Any order under sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (4) shall be
issued by the Central Excise Officer following the principles of natural justice.”
In this case, the assessee is a ‘manufacturer’ and they have wrongly taken
Cenvat credit in respect of ‘input services’ in contravention of the provisions of the CCR,
2004 and therefore penal provisions of only Rule 15(3) of the CCR, 2004 (prevailing
upto the date 26/2/2010) have been rightly invoked in the Show Cause Notice. The
plain reading of provisions of Rule 15(3) clearly indicates that there is no such limitation
of imposing of penalty only in case of suppression of fact and wilfull mis-statement
mentioned therein. It is pertinent to note here that the provisions of Section 11AC are
made applicable under Rule 15(2) only, which applies to wrong availment of Cenvat
credit in respect of ‘input’ or ‘capital goods’ but not applicable to wrong availment of
Cenvat credit in respect of ‘input services’. Therefore, I hold that penalty under Rule
21
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
15(3) [prevailing at the material time] not exceeding rupees two thousand only is
imposable in this case.
42.
I also note here that the provisions of Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules,
2004 have been replaced by Notification No. 6/2010-CX (NT), dated 27.2.2010 with
effect from the date 27.2.2010. The new provisions of Rule 15, effective from 27.2.2010,
are not applicable in this case in as much as the period covered under this case is prior
to the date 27.2.2010. However, in view of the saving provisions contained in Section
38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, penalty under erstwhile Rule 15(3) of Cenvat
Credit Rules, 2004 (i.e. prevailing upto 26.2.2010) can be imposed in this order.
43.
In view of the foregoing discussion, I hereby pass the following order:
ORDER
(i)
I disallow the Cenvat Credit of Service Tax of Rs. 9,04,398/-( Rupees Nine
Lakhs Four Thousands Three Hundred & Ninety Eight only) and order for
reversal / recovery of the same under the provisions of Section 11A(2) of
Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
(ii)
I also impose a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) under
Rule 15(3) of the Central Excise Rule 2004, in view of the discussion held at
Para 41 and Para 42 of this order.
(iii) I order recovery of interest at the prescribed rate on the amount of wrongly
availed Cenvat Credit under the provisions Section 11AB of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
The
Show
Cause
Notice
bearing
F.
No.
V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
dated 18.08.2010 stands disposed of in above terms.
(M.Rahman)
Joint Commissioner,
Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
Date : 10.05.2011
By R.P.A.D. / Hand Delivery
To
M/s. Chiripal Industries Ltd.
Survey No.199 & 200/1-2,
Saijpur-Gopalpur, Pirana Road,
Piplej, Ahmedabad.
22
F.No. V.29/15-25/Chiripal/OA-I/10-11
Copy to:
1) The Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I [Attn: Dy/Asst.
Commissioner (RRA), C.Ex. A’bad-I]
2) The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-IV, Ahmedabad-I.
3) The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-III, Division-IV, Ahmedabad-I.
4) Guard File
23