Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Raipur Forgings & Castings Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 June, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 2441 of 2012-Ex (SM)
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 82/RPR-I/2012 dated 14/05/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals I), Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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?
M/s. Raipur Forgings & Castings Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
& ST, Raipur Appearance:
Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants Shri D Singh, AR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing /decision: 25.06.2015 ORDER NO. FO/ 52071 /2015-Ex(SM) Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein cenvat credit on beam, channel, angle, joist, plate, sheets etc. used in manufacture of gantry for EOT crane on the ground that these items are not eligible cenvatable capital goods.
2. The facts of the case are that during the period 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, the appellant procured the items mentioned in para1 hereinabove and availed the cenvat credit thereon which has been used for manufacture of gantry for EOT cranes. The appellants have filed regular ER-1 return. On scrutiny of their ER-1 return, specific inquiry was conducted by Range Superintendent , Bilaspur. In reply to the letter of Superintendent concern, the appellant stated through their letters dated 4.2.2008 and 21.8.2009 that they have used the items within their factory for manufacturing gantry crane for EOT and availed benefit of Notification No. 67/95. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16.11.2010 to deny the cenvat credit. Both the lower authorities confirmed the demand of duty by denying the cenvat credit to the appellant along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that as these items have been used by the appellant for manufacture of gantry crane for EOT which is an integral part of the capital goods, therefore, they are entitled to avail cenvat credit. She further submits that the appellant is having good case on limitation also as appellant is filing their ER 1 return regularly showing availment of cenvat credit on these items and their return were scrutinized by the Range Superintendent who raised certain objections which were replied by their letters dated 4.2.2008 and 21.8.2009 and their show cause notice is dated 16.11.2010 which is barred by limitation.
4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order.
5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
6. In this case, from the records, as well as from the show cause notice, it is clear that Superintendent caused the inquiry to the appellant on scrutiny of ER 1 return which the appellant has replied vide their letters latest on 21.8.2009 and show cause notice has been issued on 16.11.2010 by invoking extended period of limitation. Moreover, the appellant has also explained the usage of these items for manufacture of gantry for EOT cranes. In these circumstances, I hold that appellant is having good case as Show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation whereas all the activities of the availment of cenvat credit was in the knowledge of the department and they have explained the usage thereof. In these circumstances, I hold that extended period of limitation is not invokable. Consequently, the demand is barred by limitation. In these terms, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
2