Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S Patel Alloys Steel Pvt.Ltd on 25 February, 2015
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/472/2010 [Arising out of OIA No.22/2010(Ahd-I)CE/CMC/Commr(A)/Ahd, dt.13.01.2010, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad] Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-I Appellant Vs M/s Patel Alloys Steel Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R. For Respondent: Shri P.G. Mehta, Advocate For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
CORAM:
HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:25.02.2015 Order No. A/10182 / 2015, dt.25.02.2015 Per: P.K. Das
1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudication order was set aside.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Iron & Steel Castings. The Respondent has two units. In the present appeal, Unit No.2 had taken CENVAT Credit on the capital goods. The Respondent had undertaken job work of the goods of Unit No.1 under Notification No.214/1986-CE, dt.01.03.1986. The Adjudicating authority denied the CENVAT Credit on the ground that the Respondents availed the benefit of Notification No.214/1986-CE. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order.
3. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Respondents had also cleared consignments manufactured by them on payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that during the material period, the Respondents also used the capital goods dutiable and exempted goods and therefore, the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied.
4. It is noted that on the identical issue, the Tribunal in the Respondents own case for the earlier period in the case of CCE Ahmedabad Vs M/s Patel Alloys Steel Ltd vide Final Order No.A/1699/WZB/AHD/2011, dt.28.04.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Learned Advocate for Respondent also relied upon various decisions as under:-
a) CCE Vs Happy Forging Ltd 2011 (265) ELT 197 (P&H)
b) Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs CCE Pune 2005 (183) ELT 353 (Tri-LB)
c) Commr. Vs Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd 2009 (244) ELT A 89 (Bom.)
d) CCE Vadodara-I Vs J.H. Kharawala (P) Ltd 2009 (235) ELT 332 (Tri-Ahmd)
e) Arvind Mills Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad 2005 (182) ELT 362 (Tri-Mum)
f) Sanshu Industries Vs CCE Aurangabad 2007 (220) ELT 481 (Tri-Mum)
g) CCE & C, Vadodara-II Vs Gujarat Propack 2009 (234) ELT 409 (Guj.)
h) CCE Goa Vs Rudra Industries 2007 (219) ELT 466 (Tri-Mum)
i) Sai Metaplast Vs CCE Navi Mumbai 2010 (262) ELT 504 (Tri-Mum)
j) Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd Vs CCE Chennai 2007 (216) ELT 719 (Tri-Che.)
k) Pos Hyundai Steel Manufacturing (I) Ltd Vs CCE Chennai 2010 (251) ELT 553 (Tri-Che.)
l) Tata Motors Ltd Vs UoI 2009 (244) ELT 337 (Bom.)
m) Vishal Pipes Ltd Vs CCE Noida 2011 (263) ELT 81 (Tri-Del)
n) CCE Noida Vs Samsung India Electronic Ltd 2014 (309) ELT 593 (All.)
5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) cbb 3