Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Ghaziabad vs M/S. Rathi Steel & Power on 4 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 04.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/2758/2012 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.108-CE/GZB/2012, dated 29.05.2012 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Ghaziabad]
C.C.E., Ghaziabad Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Rathi Steel & Power Respondent
Appearance Shri R.K. Mishra, DR - for the appellants None - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No._50441_, dated 04.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri RK Mishra, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents.
2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether various iron and steel items like MS Plate, HR Plate, MS channel, angles, etc. are entitled to avail the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on the same. I find that the legal issue is no more res integra and stands settled by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Trb LB)]. It stands held in the said decision that if such goods are used for supporting structurals, they will not be entitled to CENVAT credit, but if the same are used for fabrication of machines installed in the factory, the benefit of CENVAT credit would be available.
3. From the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals), I find that he has, after considering the documentary evidence before him, given a categorical finding that such items have been used for making equipments and parts of rolling mills. He has also examined Schematic Diagram of Rolling Mill & Layout of Rolling Mill with regard to the uses of these items in the factory of the production. As such, he has held that in as much as the items in question were used for fabrication of the machines, the respondents are entitled to the CENVAT credit of Rs.1,24,721/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand seven hundred and twenty one only).
4. The Revenue in their Memo of Appeal have nowhere contested the above findings of the facts of the Commissioner (Appeals) and have reiterated the legal issues in which they have made general statement that usually such items are used as supporting structurals. In the absence of rebuttal to the findings of the facts arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), I find no reasoning to entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -2-