Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur vs M/S. Sks Ispat And Power Ltd on 15 September, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 15.09.2015
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, 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?
Yes
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/54716/2014-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.129/RPR-I/2014, dated 05.06.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I]
C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Mr. GR Singh, DR - For Appellant Mr. Manish Saharan, Advocate - For Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.54189/2015, dated 15.09.2015 Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), holding that the CENVAT credit cannot be denied to the respondent herein on the ground that the inputs are not eligible, even though central excise duty has been paid on the same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of iron and steel products, falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of different finished products. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid by its supplier on the coal, treating the same as input. Taking of CENVAT credit was objected to by the Central Excise Department contending that coal was unconditionally exempted from payment of duty during the period prior to 24.03.2011 under entry at Sl. No.5 of the Notification No.65.95-CE, dated 16.03.1995, which was withdrawn subsequently by amending the said Notification vide No.29/2011-CE, dated 24.03.2011. Thus, according to Revenue, prior to 24.03.2011, no central excise duty was payable on coal produced in mine. Any amount charged and paid by the supplier on the clearance of coal from the mines, in the name of duty of excise, cannot be eligible for Cenvat credit to the respondent. The Show Cause Notice issued by the Department was adjudicated vide order dated 12.03.2014, disallowing CENVAT credit of Rs.19,79,123/- and imposing equal amount of penalty. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order has set aside the demand confirmed in the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal by Revenue is before this Tribunal.
3. Heard ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue and ld. counsel for the respondent and perused the records.
4. During the period 01.03.2011 to 23.03.2011, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit of the disputed amount paid as central excise duty paid on coal. The credit so taken was disallowed by Revenue on the ground that during the said period, coal was unconditionally exempted from payment of duty. It is an admitted fact that CENVAT credit has been taken by the appellant on the basis of the invoices issued by the supplier of coal, reflecting therein the excise duty charged and paid into the Govt. account. The supplier of goods was duly registered with the Central Excise Department and payment of duty on coal was not disputed by the excise authorities having jurisdiction over the factory of the respondent. Further, the classification of goods is the responsibility of the excise authority, having jurisdiction over the factory of the manufacturer or supplier. Thus, the assessment made at the suppliers end cannot be re-opened at the recipients end, and therefore, credit taken by the respondent on the basis of valid and prescribed document, is in conformity with the CENVAT scheme. Further, receipt and utilisation of the disputed goods in the factory of the respondent has not been disputed by the original authority. Hence, in my considered view, taking of CENVAT credit of central excise duty, paid by the supplier, is in conformity with the statutory provisions.
5. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and hence, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.
[Operated portion pronounced in the open court] (S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) SSK ??
??
??
??
-2-