Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc&Ce, Raipur vs M/S Topworth Steels (P) Ltd on 8 August, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing/decision: 08.08.2016 For Approval and Signature: Honble Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Excise Appeal No. 965 of 2008 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 07/RPR-II/2008 dated 11.02.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II) Customs & Central Excise, Raipur). CC&CE, Raipur Appellant Vs. M/s Topworth Steels (P) Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate for the for the appellant Sh. G. R. Singh, DR for the Respondent Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. Ashok K. Ara, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52924/ 2016 Per: Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.02.2008 passed by the first appellate authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a manufacturer of sponge iron falling under Chapter heading 72 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant is also availing the facility of cenvat credit on input and capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The department after issuing the notice observed that the facilities for the cenvat credit on some of the input goods was wrongly claimed by the assessee as these inputs are not connected with the final product. The cenvat credit has been availed for fabrication, erection and installation of various capital goods and supporting structures, namely pollution control equipment, conveyor support and gallery, stock house bunker and bunker support etc. It is the claim of the department that these were not used for finished goods i.e. sponge iron but the appellate authority has allowed the claim of the assessee by relying on number of case laws.
3. We have heard Dr. Neha Garg, ld. DR for the Revenue and Ms. Shreya Dahia, ld. Counsel for the respondent-assessee at length and gone through the case record. It may be mentioned that in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the term of input has been defined and Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 also states that input includes goods used in the manufacture of the capital goods, which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. Thus, it is not necessary that the input exclusively be used in or in relation to the final product.
4. Further, it is found that this issue came up before the Tribunal in the assessees own case in Appeal No. E/436/2009-Ex (DB) vide final Order No.52645/2016 dated 27.07.2016 where the identical issue was discussed and after examining the ratio of various case laws the claim of the assessee was allowed. The facts and circumstances are same during the period under consideration. When it is so, then by following our earlier order we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court).
(Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra) President (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) Pant