Dismissed

Bolpur v. Ge Power Ltd.

CESTAT2 Jul 2025E/76705/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this excise appeal, the revenue contested the allowability of Modvat credit on various inputs/capital goods due to procedural anomalies in record maintenance. The Tribunal held that credit cannot be denied for minor clerical infirmities when receipt and utilization of goods are not disputed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld.

Bolpur vs Ge Power Ltd. — Income Tax | CESTAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.2

¶3

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.62-64/DGP/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeal-II), Kolkata.)

¶5

Commissioner of CGST & CX, Bolpur Commissionerate

¶6

(Nanoor Chandidas Road, Sian, Bolpur, Dist: Birbhum, West Bengal.)

¶7

…Appellant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. GE Power Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. ALSTOM India Ltd.)

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

(Durgapur, Pin-713206.)

¶12

APPEARANCE

¶13

Shri S.K.Dikshit, Authorized Representative for the Revenue NONE for the Respondent (s)

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV TANDON, MEMBER(TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. 76726/2025

¶16

DATE OF HEARING : 02.07.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 02.07.2025

¶17

Per : RAJEEV TANDON :

¶18

The Revenue is aggrieved by the Order-in-Appeal No.6264/DGP/2017-18 dated 05.06.2017 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeal-II), Kolkata.

¶19

When the matter was called up, none were present for the Respondent. This being a Revenue appeal, and an old matter involving duty demands for the period May, 1999 to March, 2000, we felt

¶20

¶21

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶22

appropriate to take up the appeal for consideration, with the help of the learned AR.

¶23

The issue in the present matter revolves on a very narrow compass. The respondents having been proposed denial of Modvat credit on various inputs/capital goods received in the factory premises during the aforesaid period, were issued eight periodic show cause notices for the aforesaid period, pointing out that they had availed Modvat credit on various inputs/capital goods received in the factory premises, and that in some cases, the respondent did not account for the said goods in RG-23A Part-I. The notice further alleged that in some cases credit was taken on the strength of endorsed invoices. It alleged that in some cases the respondent had not properly maintained the RG23C Part-I and therefore the appellant had wrongly availed irregular credit violating the provisions of the Rules 57G(1), 57G(3), 57G(7), 57Q(I), 57T(I), 57T(9) read with Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

¶24

The appellate authority in his detailed and analytical findings have however held the omissions as pointed out aforesaid of a technical nature and had allowed the appellant the benefit of availment of Modvat credit essentially because he had arrived at a finding that the said goods were used in the manufacture of finished goods and therefore the respondent herein were entitled for credit during the relevant period. The crux of the Commissioner(Appeals)’s findings are scanned hereinbelow for sake of records :-

¶25

¶26

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶27

¶28

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶29

¶30

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶31

¶32

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶33

¶34

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶35

The Ld.AR for the Revenue however supports the contentions as raised in the review order primarily holding that the assessee (respondent) had not maintained RG-23C Part-I properly and that the filing of declaration under Rule 57T(1) was mandatory and therefore the respondent were not entitled for availment of the Modvat credit.

¶36

Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶37

We are not impressed by the arguments raised by the Ld.AR for the Revenue. In view of a plethora of judicial reasoning as taken note of by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) while delivering the impugned order, we are of the view that as long as receipt of goods at the respondent’s end was not doubted, availment of credit to them was not deniable. We may also point out that CBEC vide Circular No.181/15/96CX dated 07.03.1996 had clarified that Modvat credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration had been filed subsequent to the receipt of the capital goods. We are of the view that for minor/procedural/clerical infarctions, it would not be appropriate to deny them the credit, as long as receipt of the inputs/capital goods was not disputed by the Department. Moreover it has now been held in a slew of cases that credit on endorsed invoices can be availed of as long as the receipt of the said goods is not doubted.

¶38

In view of this express finding that the subject goods were received at the respondent’s end and used in manufacture of finished goods, and as also noted vide impugned Order-in-Appeal, as recorded in Para 9, 10, 18 thereof, it would be inappropriate to disallow the

¶39

¶40

Excise Appeal No.76705 of 2017

¶41

credit for reasons of certain procedural anomalies and irregularity in maintenance of statutory records, as long as it is clearly evidenced that the respondent had in fact received the goods at their end and the same were utilized in the manufacture of finished goods.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid discussions we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals). The same is therefore upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

¶43

(Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.)

¶44

Sd/ (RAJEEV TANDON) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶45

Sd/

¶46

(R. MURALIDHAR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶47

Bolpur v. Ge Power Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bolpur v. Ge Power Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Process Agrochem Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Cgst-Indore

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs Bangalore-i

Mathasraman Manufactures And Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Cochin-cce

Kerala State Co. Operative Consumers Federation Ltd. vs Calicut

Aglo Packagings Pvt. Ltd. vs Guwahati

Shyam Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs Durgapur

Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Durgapur

Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs Rourkela