Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Ashok Iron Works Ltd on 26 May, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/929/2004-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 257/2004-CE dated 31/05/2004 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore.] Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Belgaum NO. 71, CLUB ROAD, CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING, BELGAUM, - 590001 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Ashok Iron Works Ltd Plant I ,udayambag, Belgaum BELGAUM - 590008 KARNATKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the appellant Mr. J. N. Somaiya, Advocate For the respondent Date of Hearing: 26/05/2017 Date of Decision: 26/05/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20777 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal filed by Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the learned Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the Order-in-original.
2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the respondent-assessee had taken CENVAT credit on capital goods which were exclusively used for the job work. Hence a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent denying the credit of Rs.23,63,666/- for the period from July 2002 to April 2003 with penal provisions. After following the due process of law, the original authority vide Order-in-Original disallowed the credit and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Rule 13 of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2002. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the Order-in-Original.
3. Heard both the parties and perused the records.
4. The only issue to be decided in the present appeal is whether the respondent-assessee are eligible for CENVAT credit on capital goods or not. Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee by various decisions. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:
i. Final Order No.20612/2017 dt.3.5.2017 passed in the case of M/s. Jai Hind Engineering. ii. CCE vs. M/s. Kyungshin Industrial Motherson Ltd.: 2016 (332) ELT 69 (Mad.) iii. M/s. S.M. Machines Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017 (1) TMI 536 (Tri.-Del.) iv. CCE vs. M/s. Samsung India Electronic Ltd.: 2014 (309) ELT 593 (All.) v. CCE vs. M/s. Indore CNC Pvt. Ltd.: 2014 (314) ELT 322 (Tri.-Del.) vi. CCE vs. M/s. Rajashri Packages Ltd.: 2011 (268) ELT 337 (Kar.) vii. CCE vs. M/s. Patel Alloys Steel Pvt. Ltd.: 2011 (4) TMI 420 (Tri.-Ahmd.) viii. M/s. Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2006 (198) ELT 59 (Tri.-Bang.) ix. CCE vs. M/s. Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd.: 2016 (43) STR 347 (Kar.)
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record, I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgments cited supra. By following the ratios of the said decisions, I find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and therefore, the same is dismissed by upholding the impugned order.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 26/05/2017.) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3