Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Centhar Vessels (I) Ltd vs Cce Nagpur on 25 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. E/38/10 Mum
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SR/205/NGP/2009 dated 22.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur.
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?
Centhar Vessels (I) Ltd.
:
Appellant
Versus
CCE Nagpur
Respondent
Appearance Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate for Appellants Shri A.K. Prabhakar, Supdt (A.R.) for Respondents CORAM:
Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing : 25.05.2012 Date of Decision : 25.05.2012 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order wherein the CENVAT credit availed by them on iron and steel equipment such as Angles, Plates, Sheets, Joists, channels etc. were denied on the ground that these items are not parts of boiler but they utilized these goods for supporting structures i.e. for erectioning and commissioning of Boiler plant. Therefore, the duty along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty has been confirmed under the Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants are that the allegation made in the show-cause notice are not sustainable as the iron and steel items mentioned in the show-cause notice were used by them for manufacturing of boilers on which they have discharged the duty liability. These contentions were raised before the lower authorities and both the lower authorities have not given any finding for denial of CENVAT credit availed by the appellants, therefore the impugned order be set aside.
3. Heard and considered the submissions made by both sides.
4. The allegation in the show-cause notice is that the iron and steel items mentioned herein above are not being part of boilers, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for CENVAT credit. But this allegation has been denied by the appellants in reply to the show-cause notice saying that the appellants had manufactured the parts of boiler by using the above mentioned items. Therefore, this fact is to be ascertained on verification of the reports/items by the adjudicating authority and without giving any finding, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the fact whether the items of iron and steel were used in the manufacture of boiler parts on which duty has been discharged and thereafter pass an appropriate order in terms of law. All other issues are kept open.
5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) nsk 3