Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Shree Mahuva Sahakari Khand Udyog ... on 8 January, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/1581/2009 (Arising out of OIA-RKA/513-514/SRT-I/2009 dated 22.07.2009 Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Surat) Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Appellant (s) Vs. M/s. Shree Mahuva Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri K. Sivakumar, A.R. For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble 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 should be released under Rule 27 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 CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 08.01.2015 ORDER No. A/10034/2015 Dated 08.01.2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
None appears on behalf of the Respondent despite issue of notices.
2. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar Molasses, Distillery etc. classifiable under sub-heading 1701, 1703 and 2207 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent availed cenvat credit on the capital goods of various articles of Iron and Steel like MS Angles, Bars, Channels, Structures etc. used for the construction of structure of Plant, during the period from March 2004 to April 2006. A show cause notice dated 24.10.2007 was issued proposing to deny the cenvat credit for the period 09.3.2004 to 14.01.2006. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalty equal amount of duty on the Respondent and a further penalty of Rs. One lakh on Shri Arjunbhai Balubai Patel, Director of the Respondent Company. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the adjudication order on the ground that extended period of limitation can not be invoked. So, the Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
3. I find that the cenvat credit was denied on the articles of Iron and Steel used in the construction of Plant, which can not be treated as capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside the demand on the extended period of limitation. It is seen that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) has decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. Thus, it is apparent that there was conflicting view of the various benches on the issue. In this perspective, it may be considered that there can not be any suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dropped the demand of duty for the extended period of limitation.
4. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) ..KL 3