Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Vishal Pipes Ltd vs Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & ... on 14 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
Ex.Appeal No.70532/17
Arising out of O/A No.NOI-EXCUS-002-APP-0034-17-18 dated 29.05.2017 passed by Commr. (Appeals) of Central Excise, Customs, Meerut II
M/s Vishal Pipes Ltd.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Commr. of Central Excise, Customs & S.Tax, Noida II
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Ms.Pratiiksha Singh, Authorized Representative for the Appellant (s) Shri Gyanendra Kr. Tripathi, Asstt.Commr. (A.R.) for the Revenue CORAM:
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 14. 11. 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/11/2017 ORDER NO. Per Mrs.Archana Wadhwa :
As per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S.Pipes and avails cenvat credit on input, namely, H.R.Coils. Sometimes, few quantity of such input is also removed as such upon which the appellant has paid an amount equal to cenvat credit availed on such input as required under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Cerdit Rules, 2004. The Central Excise Department by treating such input removal as a trading service raised demand in terms of Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, on the ground that trading service is an exempted service. The same stands confirmed by the impugned order.
2. The issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by plethora of judgements. Reference is made to judgements in cases of (i) Bansal Alloys & Metals Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Chandigarh reported in 2010 (250) ELT 529 and (ii) A.R.Casting (P) Ltd. Vs. CCEx. & S.Tax, Chandigarh reported in 2010 (256) ELT 420, wherein Tribunal held that what is required at the time of removal of any inputs, as such, in respect of which cenvat credit has been taken, is that an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs is to be paid and there is no requirement to pay of 6% under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Further, the Tribunal of the Allahabad Bench, in its judgement in the case of CCEx. & S.Tax, Ghaziabad Vs. Vahaveer Cylinders Ltd. reported in 2016 (341) ELT 361 (Tri.-All), has held that removal of input as such by a manufacturer cannot be treated as trading activity and demand of 6% raised by the department under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, has been set aside.
3. By following the above decisions, I find no merits in the Revenues stand. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounced in the open Court on 20/11/2017) (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mm 2 Ex.Appeal No.70532/17