Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jsw Steel Ltd vs Cce Raigad on 23 May, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPLICATION NO. E/S/99139/13
IN APPEAL NO. E/89383/13 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SK/215/RGD/2013-14 dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Raigad)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
JSW Steel Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Raigad
Respondent
Appearance Shri Nikkhil Rungta, Advocate For appellants Dr. B.S. Meena, Addl. Commissioner (A.R.) For Respondents CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 23.05.2014 Date of Decision : 23.05.2014 ORDER NO.
Per Ashok Jindal After hearing both the sides, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, I take up the appeal as well as the stay application for hearing with the consent of both sides.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods viz. iron and steel. For manufacturing the above said goods, the appellant has imported iron ore pellets. As these goods cannot be taken directly to the appellants factory therefore the goods were diverted to another jetty by two parts and from there the goods were taken into the appellants factory. For this process, the appellant has paid barge and stevedoring charges. The issue whether the barge and stevedoring charges are liable to pay duty was in dispute therefore, an assessment was done provisionally. The appellant initially paid duty on the barge and stevedoring charges and took CENVAT Credit on the same. Although the dispute whether the duty is payable on barge and stevedoring charges or not was going on, the Revenue was of the view that the appellant is not entitled to take CENVAT Credit of duty paid on barge and stevedoring charges as these barge and stevedoring charges are neither capital goods nor inputs. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for denying the CENVAT Credit of duty paid on barge and stevedoring charges. A show-cause notice was issued and the duty was confirmed. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before me.
3. Today when the matter came up for hearing the learned Advocate submits that in the year 2006, on a appeal filed by the appellant, the Honble Supreme Court has decided that duty on barge and stevedoring charges are not payable. In consequent to the judgement of the Honble Apex Court, the appellant filed a refund claim of duty provisionally paid on barge and stevedoring charges but at present he is not having any documentary evidence to produce whether the claim for refund has been sanctioned or not. Therefore, the learned Advocate prays that the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact whether the refund claim on account of duty paid on barge and stevedoring charges has been entertained or not?
4. The learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue also supported the contentions of the learned Counsel.
5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.
6. I find that it would be in the interest of natural justice to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to verify the fact that whether the refund claim of duty paid on barge and stevedoring charges has been sanctioned to the appellant or not? If the refund claim is sanctioned, in that case the appellant is not entitled for CENVAT Credit. If the refund claim is not sanctioned, the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit. Therefore, it is directed to the adjudicating authority, before adjudication, shall verify the fact whether the refund claim towards duty paid on barge and stevedoring charges in the impugned matter has been sanctioned to the appellant or not and thereafter shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to present their case.
8. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of in the above terms.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk ??
??
??
??
4