Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Grasim Industries Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur Ii on 20 March, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2014. DATE OF DECISION : 20/03/2014. Excise Appeal No. 1240 of 2007 (SM) [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 54 (HKS)/CE/JPR-II/ 2007 dated 06/02/2007 passed by The Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise, Jaipur.] 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? 2. Whether it would 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 : Department Authorities? M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Appellant Versus CCE, Jaipur II Respondent
Appearance Shri Ganesh Babu, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri M.S. Negi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent.
CORAM : Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No. 51265/2014 Dated : 20/03/2014 Per. Archana Wadhwa :-
The short issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit of duty paid on Cement and Steel Pars, which stand used for the construction of Silo, used for the storage of cement bags. The credit availed by them in the month of March 2009 stand denied to them on the ground that the construction of storage of Silos cannot be held to be an activity connected with their business so as to allow the Cenvat credit of duty paid on the same.
2. I find that the issue is no more res-integra and stand settled by the following decisions :-
(1) Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs. CCE, Mysore reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 326 (Kar.) ;
(2) CCE, Bangalore II vs. SLR Steels Ltd. reported in 2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.) ;
(3) CCE, Mysore vs. ICL Sugars Ltd. reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T. 360 (Kar.) ;
(4) CCE, Belgaum vs. Doodhaganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit reported in 2013 (279) E.L.T. 361 (Kar.) ;
(5) Sai Samhita Storages P. Ltd. vs. CC & CE, Visakhapatnam II reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. Bang.) ;
(6) CCE, Visakhapatnam II vs. Sai Sahmita Storages (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T. 33 (A.P.) ; and (7) CCE, Jalandhar vs. Pioneer Agro Extracts Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 597 (P&H).
3. It stands held in all the decisions that the cements and various steel items used for construction of storage tanks are admissible cenvatable inputs. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue has tried to make a distinction in the said decision by submitting that the storage tanks in all the decisions are meant for storing of liquids waste, whereas the silos in the present case is meant for storing of cement bags. As such, the ratio of the above decisions would not apply.
4. I find no merits in the above distinction sought to be made by the learned DR. Storage facilities whether for storing of liquid or storing of solid goods remains storing facilities only and once such storage is essential and is required for smooth running of the factory, the construction of the same has to be held in connection with business activity and the materials used in the construction of the same cannot be denied the Cenvat credit. As such, by following the above decisions, I find no merits of the impugned orders of authorities below. Accordingly, the same are set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) PK ??
??
??
??
3