Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Abs Steel Ltd vs C.C.E. Raipur on 4 March, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. E/1862/2006-Ex[DB]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. Commissioner/RPR/51/2005 dated: 24.08.2005 passed by CCE Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, 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. ABS Steel Ltd. ...Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E. Raipur Respondent
Appearance:
None appeared for the Appellant Mr. Sanjay Jain DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/ Decision.04.03.2016 Final Order No. 53033 /2016 Per S K Mohanty:
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the activity of drawing H.B.Wire and Binding Wire falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7217.90 of the First Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant pays Central Excise duty on removal of those excisable goods from the factory. The appellant avails cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods used in the factory premises. Taking of cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods was objected to by the Central Excise Department on the ground that drawing of wires from the input namely, Wire Roads is not amounting to manufacture, and thus, the activity undertaken by the appellant does not attract levy of Central Excise duty. Hence, these is no question of availment of cenvat credit on the inputs and capital goods.
2. None appeared for the appellant. Heard the Ld. AR for Revenue, who reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
3. It is an admitted fact that even though the activity undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, but the Central Excise duty paid on removal fo H. B. Wire and Binding Wire has been accepted by the department and retained as Government dues. We find that the issue involved in this case is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of R. B. Steel Services and Ors. Vs CCE Rohtak, Final Order No. A-54157-54159/2014, wherein it has been held that cenvat credit cannot be denied, which has been utilized towards payment of duty on the final products, even when the process does not amount to manufacture.
4. In view of above settled position of law, we do not find any merits in the impugned order, and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced in the open court)
(R. K. Singh) (S. K. Mohanty)
Member(Technical) Member (Judicial)
Neha
2 | Page
E/1862/2006-Ex[DB]