C.E.A.No.43 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.43 of 2006 Date of Decision:-January 29,2010 Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar. ...Appellant Versus M/s Friends Auto Industries, Noormahal Road, Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. None for the respondent. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) The revenue has impugned the order dated 12.5.2005 (Annexure A3) passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide which, the order passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside and it was held that there was no evidence to show that on the date of filing the declaration, the goods were not found lying in the factory premises of the respondent or that the goods were never received at all and that they availed the modvat credit only on the basis of invoices. The respondent sought the modvat credit on the basis of the goods, which were lying in the factory premises at the time of filing of the declaration regarding modvat credit. The claim of modvat credit of the respondent was cleared by the department. However, the adjudicating authority, on the basis of audit report, disallowed the modvat credit and C.E.A.No.43 of 2006 2 imposed the penalty. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that once the declaration filed by the respondent was found correct and the modvat credit was granted to the respondent, then the same could not be revoked on the basis of the audit report. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent had committed fraud in claiming inadmissible modvat credit. However, a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal shows that there was no suppression of facts regarding the receipt of the goods by the respondent. All the necessary details were duly declared by the respondent and hence the modvat credit could not be denied to it. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal being without any merit is dismissed. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 29.1.2010 AS