Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S Penna Cement Industries, Unit-Ii on 27 July, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Date of Hearing: 27.07.2012
Date of decision: 27.07.2012
Appeal No. E/2160/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 02/2010(T)(D)CE dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Guntur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi
Appellant
Vs.
M/s Penna Cement Industries, Unit-II,
Talaricheruvu, Anantapur (A.P.)
Respondent
Appearance Ms. Sabrina Cano, A.R. for appellant Ms. Rukmini Menon, Adv for respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2012 The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal of the department is whether the rails which were used by the respondent for moving stalker and reclaimer in their factory during the material period could be treated as capital goods falling under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The original authority found that rails were essential for the movement of the two machines viz. stalker and reclaimer which are used for stacking and spreading the lime-stone, one of the essential input used in the manufacture of cement (final product). The said machines were found to be classifiable under Heading 84.74 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and the rails were found to be accessories to these machines and accordingly classified as capital goods for the purpose of CENVAT Credit. These findings of the original authority were sustained by the first appellate authority. These concurrent findings of the authorities are not under challenge in the present appeal of the department. The appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in open court) (P.G. CHACKO) MEMBER (Judicial) /pnr/ 2