Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Echjay Forgings Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner, Central Excise, ... on 13 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/1525/12 [Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. US/484/RGD/2012 dated 10/8/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Mumbai ] For approval and signature: Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, 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 : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Echjay Forgings Pvt Ltd
:
Appellant
VS
The Commissioner, Central Excise, Raigad
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Advocate along with Shri. Mihir Mehta, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V. K. Shastri, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing: 13/6/2016 Date of decision: 5/10/2016 ORDER NO.
The issue involved is of refund towards amount of Cenvat credit deposited and interest paid there upon in respect of Welding Electrodes. The adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority denied the refund claim on the ground that in respect of admissibility of the Cenvat credit on welding electrodes though the adjudicating authority had allowed the credit but same was disallowed by the Commissioner(Appeals) in the revenues appeal. Appellant filed appeal challenging the Commissioner(Appeals) order on the admissibility on the Cenvat credit on welding electrodes before CESTAT.
2. Shri. Prasad Paranjape, Ld Counsel alongwith Shri. Mihir Mehta, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim. As per Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)s order on the issue of admissibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes, it was held that Cenvat credit is inadmissible. Now that issue has been settled in favour of the appellant in appellants own case vide Tribunal order No.A/33/14/SMB/C-IV dated 26-12-2013 whereby Cenvat credit on welding electrodes was allowed, consequently appellant become entitle for the refund.
3. Shri. V.K. Shastri, Ld. Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record.
5. I find that only reason for denying the refund claim on the amount of Cenvat credit and interest paid thereupon in respect of welding electrodes is that the Commissioner(Appeals) has held that Cenvat credit is not admissible on welding electrodes. Now as per the Tribunal order in appellants own case dated 26/12/2013 Cenvat credit has been allowed by this Tribunal therefore the appellant became entitle for the refund. I therefore set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original adjudicating authority to decide the refund in accordance with law. Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating authority in the above terms.
(Order pronounced in Court on 5/10/16 ) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) sk 2 E/1525/12