Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur vs Rai Mata I Pvt. Ltd on 17 August, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER
Date of Hearing: 16/7/2015
Date of Pronouncement: 17/8/2015
Appeal No. E/57416/2013-EX(SM)
(Arising out of OIA No. 40/RPR-I/2013 dated 14.02.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeal-I) Central Excise, Raipur)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?
C.C.E. & S.T. Raipur Appellant
Vs.
Rai Mata I Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri G.R.Singh (DR) Present for the Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No.52566/2015 Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. The issue arising in this appeal is regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit.
2. The brief facts are that the respondents are engaged in manufacture of Sponge Iron and are availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. They were issued show cause notice alleging that during the period 2005-06 2006-07 the respondents availed credit on items viz M.S. Angle, M.S. Channel, M.S. Joints, M.S. Plates, M.S. Flats, & H.R. Sheet, as inputs claiming the same to have been used in manufacture of capital goods. That enquiry revealed that they have erected/installed the parts of plant (Stock House, Conveyor Systems, Kiln, Cooler, Transfer Chutes Intermediate Bin, product house etc.) using these items. The primary adjudicating authority disallowed the credit observing that the goods claimed to have been manufactured using these items are not capital goods, but structural items used for erection and installation of capital goods. In appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal.
3. The learned DR drew attention to the definition of inputs and pointed out the amendment brought forth w.e.f. 07.07.2009 in explanation 2 to Rule 2 (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also relied upon the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB).
4. The argument advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents is to the effect that the Steel Plats, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channel etc were used for manufacture of parts and components used for manufacture of Sponge Iron. He laid thrust on Industrial Technical Consultants Certificate dated 31.5.2007 which detailed the quantity of various items used in the manufacture of Stock House/Storage Tanks for raw material Conveyor System, Kiln Cooler, Chimney, Transfer Chutes, Intermediate Bin, Storage Tanks for products etc. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decisions rendered in UOI Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 55 (Chhattisgarh).
5. Heard both sides. The onus whether the impugned items were inputs used for manufacture of final products is on the respondents/assessee. In the instant case Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that these items were used in making of structures embedded in the earth for support of machinery or the building. So also there is no case that it was used for construction of factory shed, or laying foundation. The Technical Certificate shows the quantity of these items used for making of storage tank for raw material, conveyor system, kiln cooler & chimney, Transfer Chutes, Intermediate Bin and Storage Tank for products. These goods are covered under Chapter 84 of the CETA 1985. The respondents have established that the steel items were not used for laying foundation or for building supporting structures and therefore the facts of the instant case, in my view, is outside the purview of application of the principle laid in Vandana Global Case (supra).
6. The Honble High Court in Union of India Vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. (supra) relying on the decision laid in Commissioner Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has held in favour of the assessee. The facts being similar, the ratio laid in these judgments which is concluded in favour of the assessee is applicable to the instant case.
7. In view there of, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by Revenue. The same is dismissed.
(Pronounced on 17/8/2015) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) K. Gupta 2