Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vital Healthcare Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 15 July, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. E/578/09 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IPL/23/NSK/2009 dated 17.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)Central Excise & Customs, Nashik. For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
============================================================= Vital Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. :
Appellants VS Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, nashik Respondents Appearance Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, for Appellants Shri H.B. Negi, SDR Authorized Representative CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of decision : 15/07/2010 ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The issue involved in this case is that whether the credit of TMT bars was available by the appellants, which is neither covered under the definition of capital goods nor as an input for manufacture of final product.
2. The learned Advocate submitted that the issue has been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.LB) wherein the credit on TMT bars was denied. But the learned Advocate prayed that as the issue involved interpretation of the statute no penalty is leviable.
3. Heard .
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocate, I find that the issue has been squarely covered by the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (Supra) against the appellant. Accordingly, duty demand is confirmed but as rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate that the issue involved interpretation of statute, no penalty is leviable in this case also. Accordingly, the penalty demand is dropped.
5. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 2