Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog (P) Ltd vs Cce, Rohtak on 27 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 SINGLE MEMBER BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. E/2539/2012 [Arising out of the OIA No.195/BK/RTK/2012 dt.1.6.2012 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-III, Gurgaon) Date of Hearing: 24.10.2016 Date of Decision:_27/10/20116 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes M/s.Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog (P) Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Rohtak Respondent
Appearance Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.M.Sharma, AR for the respondent CORAM:Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO.: 61570/2016 PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying the credit on the premise that the M.S.Bar is not input for the appellant to manufacture M.S.Pipes.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the sole reason to deny the credit to the appellant that the M.S.Bar is not input for manufacture of M.S.Pipes. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the procurement of bars by the appellant and the same has been received in the factory. Further, the appellant has explained that as per chapter note 1 (m) of chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, other bars and rods include rectangles (including squares), ovals, etc. and the said issue has been examined by the Tribunal in the case of Muzaffarnagar Pipe Industries Pvt.Ltd.-2002 (148) ELT 134 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that the credit is admissible on bars. The said order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Honble Apex Court reported 2003 (151) ELT A185 (SC). Therefore, the credit is admissible to the appellant on the bars.
3. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions of both sides.
5. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that the sole reason to deny the credit to the appellant that M.S.Bar is not input for manufacture of M.S.Pipe. As procurement of M.S.Bar has not been disputed by the Revenue and as per the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Muzaffarnagar Pipe Industries Pvt.Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:
The appellants in the present proceedings has not contested the classification of their inputs and has agreed that their inputs were bars and not flats as declared by them in their documents. The benefit of Modvat credit has been extended in favour of the appellants. As it is an admitted position that the inputs are bars, the credit has been restricted to the amount of duty payable on bars. Even when no procedural requirements have been met by the appellants. which has been affirmed by the Honble Apex Court.
I hold that the appellant is entitled to avail the credit on bars as inputs. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(pronounced in the open court 27/10/2016)
( Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
mk
3
Appeal No.E/2539/2012
Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak