Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Madras Cements Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Central ... on 8 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/2978/2012-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 32-2012 dated 03/08/2012 passed by CCE&ST(Appeals), Guntur] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the 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 MADRAS CEMENTS LTD KUMARASAMY RAJA NAGAR 521457, JAGGAYYAPET TALUK, KRISHNA DIST AP Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax GUNTUR NULL P.B.NO. 331...C.R.BUILDING, KANNAVARI THOTA, GUNTUR, - 520004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 08/07/2015 Date of Decision: 08/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21522 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Nobody appeared for the appellant. Accordingly I have heard the learned AR and have gone through the impugned orders.
2. The dispute relates to the availment of CENVAT credit of duty paid on various iron items used for repair and maintenance of their plant and machinery during the period June 2006 to July 2009. Revenue by entertaining a view that the said credit is not admissible, raised a show-cause notice on 23/06/2011, proposing denial of the credit. The same stand adjudicated by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals).
3. The issue as to whether various items used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are CENVATable or not stands decided by various High Court/Tribunal as reproduced below:-
a. Birla Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II [2012(276) ELT 376 (Tri. Del.)] b. CCE, Bangalore Vs. Alfred Herbert (I) Ltd. [2010(257) ELT 29 (Kar.)] c. CCE, C&ST, Guntur Vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd. [2014(305) ELT 150 (Tri. Bang.)] In view of the above, I hold that the various items are CENVATable.
4. Apart from that, I also find that the show-cause notice invoked the longer period of limitation. The appellants were availing the credit on statutory records and were filing the monthly returns. It is also seen that query was made by the Revenue which was replied by the appellant on 09/02/2009 clarifying that the said iron items were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. Show-cause notice was issued after a period of more than 2= years from the said clarification placed on record by the appellant. In such a scenario, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant so as to invoke longer period of limitation. Accordingly I hold the demand to be barred by limitation.
5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER Raja.
3