Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Raipur vs M/S Moonlight Alloys Pvt. Limited on 7 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi, Court No. 1 Date of hearing: 21.11.2016 Date of pronouncement: 07.12.2016 Excise Appeal No. 3197 of 2012 (Arising out of order-in-appeal No. 117/RPR-I/2012 dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I), Central Excise, Raipur-II). CCE, Raipur Appellant-Revenue (Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, AR for the Revenue) Vs. M/s Moonlight Alloys Pvt. Limited Respondent -assessee
(Sh. J. M. Sharma, Consultant for the Respondent-assessee) Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 55738/ 2016 Per: V. Padmanabhan:
The appeal stands filed against the order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur. The dispute pertains to the cenvat credit availed by the respondent who is engaged in the manufacture of ferro alloys falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The cenvat credit stands availed on goods such as high carbon ferro manganese and aluminium ingots which are claimed to be inputs used in the manufacture of final products. The Revenue took the view that the cenvat credit availed by the respondent was improper inasmuch as the goods on which credit has been availed have been cleared as such and were never used for the manufacture of the final products. As such Revenue entertained the view that this activity was in the nature of trading for which cenvat credit was not admissible. The confirmation of demand by the original authority stands set-aside in the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue is in appeal against such impugned order.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. On behalf of Revenue ld. AR Sh. Yogesh Agarwal pleaded that the impugned order may be set-aside and order-in-original reinstated. However, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the goods on which cenvat credit has been availed were in the nature of inputs. He further submitted that the goods were removed as such and the cenvat credit taken was reversed at the time of removal of such goods. The fact of such reversal also stands reported in the monthly ER-1 returns filed for the relevant period.
4. The respondent has availed the cenvat credit on goods which are claimed to be inputs. At the time of clearance of such goods as such, the cenvat credit availed has been reversed and the same reflected in the monthly returns. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 clearly makes a provision for such removal of inputs as such on reversal of the cenvat credit availed. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Pronounced on 07.12.2016).
(Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra)
President
(V. Padmanabhan)
Member (Technical)
Pant