Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raipur vs M/S. Shriram Hi Tech Steel &Power Ltd on 27 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 2797 & 2811 of 2010-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 118/RPR-I/ 2010 dated 23.03.2010 and No. 112/RPR-I/ 2010 dated 25.03.2010 both passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I) Raipur (CG) ]
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?
No
2
Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities?
Yes
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Shriram Hi tech Steel &Power Ltd. Respondent
R S Ispat P Ltd.
Appearance:
Shri M S Negi, AR for the Appellants None for the Respondent Date of Hearing /decision: 27.03.2014 ORDER NO. FO/ 51332-51333 /2014- (SM) Per Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved is identical. In both the cases, Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Cenvat credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items by holding the same as cenvatable inputs. I find the Revenues contention is that same are used as supporting structurals and in view of law declared by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB)]., they are not cenvatable items.
2. I find that the period involved in the case of Shriram Hi-Tech Steel & Power Ltd. is from September, 2004 to March, 2008, whereas the show cause notice stand issued on 22.7.08. In the case of R S Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the period involved is from 2006 to 2007 and the show cause notice issued on 28.5.2009. As such, the entire demand in the cases of R S Ispat Pvt. Ltd is fully barred by limitation and a major part of the demand in the case of Shriram Hi-Tech Steel & Power Ltd. is also beyond limitation.
3. In the case similar situate appellants, involving the same issue Tribunal in number of decisions has held that inasmuch as during the relevant period, the law was declared in favour of the assessee, and was reversed only subsequently , no malafide can be attributed to the manufacturer assessee so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. Reference can be made to the following decisions:
1) Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I [2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC)]
2) Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC)]
3) M/s. High Tech Equipments & Spares Pvt. Ltd.
Final Order No. A/58186/2013-SM[BR] dated 05.11.2013
4) CCE, Raipur v. Baldev Alloys Pvt. Ltd [2012-TIOL-388-CESTAT-DEL]
5) CCE, Raipur v. Orion Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
[2010 (259) ELT 84 (Tri.)]
6) CCE, Raipur v. Rajaram Maize Products [2010 (258) ELT 539 (Tri.)]
4. Inasmuch as the entire demand in the case of R S Ispat Pvt. Ltd is barred by limitation, I find no merits in the Revenues appeal on the point of limitation and reject the appeal. As regards the appeal against Shriram Hi-tech Steel and Power Ltd., I find that actual position as to whether the said items were used in fabrication of capital goods or supporting structurals is required to be verified. Accordingly the matter is being remanded to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the above fact and for deciding the issue afresh only for the period falling within the limitation period. The adjudicating authority would also take into consideration the law as and when declared by the Honble Chhattisgarh High Court before whom the appeal against M/s. Vandana Global Ltd. is pending. It is made clear that inasmuch as the issue involved was bonafide interpretation of law, no penalty would be imposable on Shriram Hi-tech Steel and Power Ltd
5. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above manner.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
4