Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Basti Sugar Mills Co Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 21 January, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 60567 of 2013- Ex[SM]
Excise Stay Application No. 61693/2013
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 26/CE/ALLD /2013 dated 30.8.2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
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?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent, Allahabad
Appearance:
Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate for the Appellants Ms. S Sharma, DR for the Respondent Date of Hearing /decision: 21.1.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ A 50260 /2014-ST(SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 1,52,892/- as also penalty of equivalent amount, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue relates to the factual verification of the appellants claim.
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the Cenvat credit stand denied to the appellants in respect of various iron and steel items on the ground that they have been used as supporting structures and in terms of Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., Cenvat credit is not admissible. The appellants in their reply took a stand that all the items were not used as supporting structures and the same were also used for fabrication of machinery, in which case, even as per the law declared in Vandana Global Ltd. they would be entitled to avail Cenvat credit. The said plea of the appellant do not stand considered by the lower authorities.
3. Inasmuch as the above plea requires factual verification which can be done only at the level of original adjudicating authority, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the appellants above claim and to decide the matter afresh. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity to put forth the documentary evidence in support of their plea.
4. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2