TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be installed. It is further submitted that the other components which are parts of the weigh bridge are cleared by the petitioner on payment of duty from the factory. The petitioner submits that the Department raised a demand in respect of the impugned Order-in- Original pertaining to the period between April 2012 to February 2014. It is submitted that such demands which were raised earlier had resulted in appeals being filed by the petitioner before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru (For short, 'the Tribunal') against the confirmation of demands from the lower adjudicating authorities and the Tribunal had allowed the appeals preferred by the petitioner by order dated 27.05.2015 covering the period between July 2006 to August 2008 at Annexure-B and similar orders were passed for the period between September to June 2011 at Annexure-C. In fact, it is pointed out that an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the Lower Appellate Authority for the period 2008 - 2009 which was allowed, came to be dismissed as per the order dated 22.09.2017 at Annexure-E. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present demand made is pursuant to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, reference is made to the record of personal hearing at paragraph No.9 of the impugned order. 5. Sri. Jeeven J Neeralgi, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the orders may not have been challenged in light of the instruction which provided for non-challenge of orders below monetary limit and accordingly, the orders at Annexures - B, C and D would not tie the hands of the Authority in arriving at an independent conclusion. That appears to be the main objection by the respondents insofar as the present petition is concerned. It is further pointed out that even otherwise if the order of the Authority requires to be set aside, the matter is to be remanded back for re-consideration by the Authorities and this Court ought not to grant relief to the petitioner in the present proceedings itself. 6. What requires to be noted is that the orders at Annexures - B, C and D for different assessment periods between the petitioner and the Department and that the question raised in the present proceedings has also been considered in the orders at Annexures - B, C and D. The only question that arose for consideration was that the component of the electronic weigh bridge i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty-paid, were utilized in the final product, on which duty has been paid, the mere fact of non-receipt of goods in the factory but sent directly at site of the project will not result in the denial of credit to the assessee. As such, I find no reasons to deny credit to the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellant." 8. In the order at Annexure-C which is another appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bengaluru [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.533/2014-CE dated 28.08.2014], the Tribunal has again dealt with the same question and answered as follows at paragraph No.5 of the order: "5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue involved in the present case is not more res integra and the CENVAT credit availed on inputs not received in the factory but at the customer site and when its value has been included in the value of the final product on which duty has been paid is licit as decided in the assessee's own case for an earlier period from July 2006 to September 2007 wherein it has been held that the issue is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the policy of the Government not to challenge the orders which were subject to a monetary limit. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Instruction dated 17.12.2015 provided for a monetary limit and in each of the orders at Annexures - B, C and D, the subject matter of adjudication did not fall within the monetary limits. The monetary limit for challenging orders as per the table forming part of the Instruction in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 is extracted below: Sl.No. Appellate Forum Monetary Limit 1. CESTAT Rs. 10,00,000/- 2. HIGH COURTS Rs. 15,00,000/- 3. SUPREME COURTS Rs. 25,00,000/- 13. In the present case, it is to be noticed that the order at Annexure-B relates to demand of Rs. 15,88,290/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Only) for the period between July 2006 to September 2007 and the demand of Rs. 46,32,229/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Nine Only) relates to the period between September 2007 to August 2008. Insofar as the order at Annexure-C is concerned, the demand amounted to Rs. 28,70,807/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred ....