Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Bhopal vs M/S Jaypee Bela Plant/ on 27 April, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi
COURT-I
Date of hearing/ decision: 27.04.2012
Honble Sh. Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President
Honble Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
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?
Excise Appeal No. 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100 & 1101 of 2006
(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 200-204-CE/BPL/2005 dated 28.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal).
CCE, Bhopal Appellants
Vs.
M/s Jaypee Bela Plant/ Respondent
M/s Jaypee Rewa Plant Present Sh. Sunil Kumar, AR for the appellant.
Present Sh. B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate or the respondent
CORAM : Honble Shri Justice Ajit Bharihoke, President
Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Order No. ________________
Per. Justice Ajit Bharihoke:
This order shall dispose of above referred five appeals originating out of the common order No. 200-204-CE/BPL/2005 dated 28.12.2005.
2. The department in the instant appeals have not challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing cenvat credit to the respondent in respect of welding electrodes and gases. The challenge to the impugned order is on the premise that Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to quantify the amount of cenvat credit allowed to the respondent in respect of certain amount of plates, channels, beams, CTD bars, joists, etc. used for fabrication of capital goods used within the factory.
3. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned order in our considered view is mis-conceived for the reason that perusal of the impugned order would show that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not allowed cenvat credit either in full or part in respect of the plates, CTD bars, joists etc as such there was no need for quantification of cenvat credit on that aspect. So far as cenvat credit allowed in respect of welding electrodes and gases is concerned that is not challenged and there is no dispute regarding quantification of the same. Since the memorandum of appeal particularly the respective grounds of appeal do not challenge the finding of the appellate authority, the appeals deserve to be dismissed being without any cause of action.
4. Appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(Justice Ajit Bharihoke) President (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) Pant