Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs A.R.Castings P.Ltd on 18 May, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No.2953 of 2009(SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.300/CE/CHD/2009, dated 01.09.2009 issued by CCE, Chandigarh]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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?
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
A.R.Castings P.Ltd. Respondents
Coram : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Ms. Renu Jagdev, AR for the Appellant Shri Mayank Garg, Adv. for the Respondents Date of Hearing/Decision : 18.05.2012 ORDER NO . _____ Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Revenues appeal is against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has held that while removing the inputs as such, the respondents is liable to pay back only the Cenvat credit availed in respect of inputs and not the service tax credit availed by them. For the above proposition, he has relied upon Tribunals decision in the case of Punjab Steels, Final Order No.666/09/SM, dtd. 25.06.09. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below :-
On the very issue, the Tribunal in the case of Chitrakoot Steel & Power P.Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai (supra) has held that when the Cenvat credit availed inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory of the assessee as such, sub rule 3 (5) provides for recovery of the amount of the Cenvat credit availed in respect of such inputs or capital goods and there is no provision to reverse the credit of service tax availed in respect such goods or capital goods. Following the judgement of the Tribunal, I hold that the impugned order not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
2. I find that the said decision of the Tribunal stands confirmed by Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected reported in 2010(260)ELT521(P&H). In as much as the issue stands decided, I find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner(Appeals). Accordingly appeal filed by Revenue is rejected.
(Pronounced in the open Court on)
(Archana Wadhwa) Member(Judicial)
RK-I
??
??
??
??
2