Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Bhushan Steel Ltd vs Cce, Ghaziabad on 10 April, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III Excise Appeal No. 1991 of 2011-EX[DB] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 1/COMMR./GZB/2011 dated 29.04.2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Ghaziabad] Excise Appeal No. 1240 of 2012-EX[DB] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No 8/COMMR./GZB/2011-12 dated 16.02.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Ghaziabad] For approval and signature: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. 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? M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd. Appellants Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Rajesh Chibber and Shri Anil Sood, Advocates for the Appellants Shri N. Pathak, and Shri R.K. Mathur, DRs for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/decision : 10.04.2013 ORDER NO . FO 56111-56112 /2013-Ex(Br) Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
Learned representative appearing of the appellant seeks pass over on the ground that the learned advocate is struck up in traffic jam and has not been able to reach the Tribunal. However, we find that it is 1.20 PM and the ground put forth for the pass over is not justified. We also note that present matters are at the end of the list and as such, no pass over can be allowed.
2. In view of the above, we reject the request for pass over and proceed to decide appeal itself inasmuch as, after hearing the learned DR, we find that the issue is covered by umpteen number of precedent decisions of various judicial and quasi-judicial authorities.
3. Vide their impugned orders, the lower authorities has sought to deny the Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs / raw materials not utilized for payment of duty on the final product on the ground that activity of cutting of HR/CR coils of iron and non-allied steel into sheets or slitting into strips does not amount to manufacture. Inasmuch as no manufacturing activity was undertaken by the appellant, they cannot be held entitled to avail the Cenvat credit. At this stage, we find that admittedly the appellant has discharged the central excise duty on their final product, by utilizing the Cenvat credit in question.
4. Learned DR also agrees that duty paid on the final product is more than Cenvat credit availed by the assessee and as such, part duty also stand paid from the PLA/ cash. As such, we note that by debiting the Cenvat credit while paying the duty on their final product, the entire Cenvat credit stand reversed. Even otherwise, it is revenue neutral situation and is covered by Apex Court decision in the case of Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC)]. In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open court)
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
??
??
??
??
2