Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Jay Shree Chemicals And Fertilizer ... vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iii on 6 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Appeal No. E/50928/2015-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 13/CE/APPL-II/DELHI-2014 dated 29.12.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals-II) Gurgaon]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
The Jay Shree Chemicals and Fertilizer (Unit-III) ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E. Delhi-III Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. R. C. Chaudhary (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. G. R. Singh (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 06.11.2015 Final Order No. 54251 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid. During the disputed period i.e. from 2009-2010 to 2012-2013, the appellant had availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on HR Coils, HR Sheets and Iron & Steel Bars for manufacture of vessel/ storage tank installed within the factory. Taking of cenvat credit on the said disputed goods was denied by the Central Excise Department on the ground that those goods neither classified as inputs nor as capital goods for the purpose of taking cenvat credit.
2. Sh. R. C. Chaudhary, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that HR Coils/ steel plates were used in the replacement of vessels, which are used for chemical reaction and chemical process and the manufacturing activities cannot be carried out without vessel, as chemical reaction itself takes place in the vessel. He further submits that the definition of Capital Goods contained the Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 takes within its ambit storage tank for the purpose of consideration as capital goods for cenvat benefit. The alternate submission of the Ld. Advocate is that since the disputed goods were used for manufacture of vessel/ storage tank within the factory, the same can qualify as input both under the un-amended as well as amended definition of input contained in Rule 2(k) ibid.
3. Per contra, Sh. G.R. Singh the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. It is an admitted fact that the disputed goods in the present case were used for manufacture/ replacement of vessel/ Storage tank installed in the factory. Since as per the explanation of the Ld. Advocate, the vessels are essential for use in the manufacture of the final product, I am of the considered view that as per the definition of input contained in both un-amended as well as amended definition of input, the disputed goods shall eligible for cenvat benefit. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 3