Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sri Shiv Shakti Steel & Alloys vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 24 February, 2012
THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, WTC BUILDING, FKCCI COMPLX, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE Date of hearing: 24.02.2012 Date of decision: 24.02.2012 Appeal No. E/1895/2010 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No: 11/2010(H-III) CE dated 28/05/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax(Appeals-III) Hyderabad) For approval and signature Honble Mr P.G. Chacko, 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 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities M/s Sri Shiv Shakti Steel & Alloys .Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad , Respondents
Present for the Appellant : Mr. G. Natarajan, Adv Present for the Respondent : Ms. Sabrina Cano, A.R. Coram:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) ORDER No______________________ This appeal of the assessee is directed against denial of CENVAT credit of Rs 1,38,347/- on various items viz. M.S. beams, Channels, Plates, Angles, H.R. coils, etc. which are claimed to have been used in the fabrication of certain components of pollution control equipments. These items were procured and CENVAT credit was taken thereon during the period from March 2007 to August 2008. The adjudicating authority and the appellate authority disallowed the credit on the ground that the said items were not shown to be capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. The case of the appellant is that the above items were used to fabricate certain components of pollution control equipments as certified by a Chartered Engineer and therefore all the said items are covered by the definition of capital goods, as components/accessories of pollution control equipment. I have seen a copy of the Chartered Engineers certificate dated 31/8/2009 which was produced by the appellant before the lower appellate authority. As per this certificate, the items in question were used for fabrication of bag filter cages and chutes for pollution control equipment. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this certificate of the Chartered Engineer is based on inspection of the pollution control equipment and is accompanied by photographs of the equipment and therefore CENVAT credit can be allowed on all the items in question as capital goods. The learned Superintendent (A.R.) submits that the appellant had not claimed before the lower appellate authority that they had used the subject items for fabricating filter cages or chutes for pollution control equipments and therefore the Chartered Engineers certificate is not reliable.
2. After considering the submissions, I am of the view that this dispute has got to be revisited by the original authority. The Chartered Engineers certificate was not considered by the original authority. Apparently, therefore, that authority missed the question whether the subject items had been used for fabricating cages and chutes for pollution control equipments as certified by the Chartered Engineer. If the filters cages and chutes referred to in the certificate are shown to be components/accessories of pollution control equipment and if the subject items (beams, channels, plates, coils etc.) are shown to have been used to fabricate the cages and chutes, the appellant can legitimately claim CENVAT credit on these items as capital goods. They have to establish this claim before the original authority. If necessary, the adjudicating officer may visit the factory and inspect the equipment.
3. The impugned order is therefore set aside and this appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authority. That authority shall pass a speaking order on the issue in accordance with law after giving the party a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
(P.G.CHACKO) Member (Judicial)
/pnr/
3