Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Metro Cement & Mines Pvt. Ltd vs Cce,Jaipur-Ii on 12 August, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI.
Date of hearing/decision:12.08.2013
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?
Excise Appeal No.E/4162/2012-EX (SM)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.63/RDN/CE/JPR-II/11 dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-II), Jaipur)
M/s.Metro Cement & Mines Pvt. Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
CCE,Jaipur-II Respondent
Appearance: Shri O.P. Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.K. Verma, AR for the respondent. Coram : Honble Shri Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical) Final Order No.57452/2013 /Dated:12.08.2013 Per Rakesh Kumar:
The appellant are manufacturers of cement. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant are eligible for cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on the steel balls & cylpebs used in grinding mill for grinding clinkers into cement and rods & hammer used in Hammer Mill. The alumina balls (cylpebs) are used for fine grinding. As regards the rods and hammers, there is no dispute that the same are used in the hammer mills, where the lime stone is crushed. The department being of the view that these items are not eligible for cenvat credit, initiated proceedings for recovery for cenvat credit of Rs.27,533/- along with interest and imposition of penalty, which resulted in issue of order-in-original dated 28.12.2010 by the Dy. Commissioner by which the above mentioned cenvat credit demand was confirmed along with interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed. This order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal no.63/RDN/CE/JPR-II/2012 dated 18.10.2012 against which this appeal has been filed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Shri O.P. Agarwal, Chartered Accountant, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the Board vide Circular no.920/10/2010-CX dated 1.4.2010 has clarified that alumina balls/ceramic pebbles, which are grinding media, should be considered as component /part of the machines to be classified as capital goods for cenvat credit purposes, that from this Circular, it is clear that the grinding balls and ceramic pebbles (cylpebs) used for grinding of cement clinkers into cement are to be considered as component of capital goods and would be eligible for cenvat credit. As regards the hammers and rods, the same are used in the Hammer Mill, where the lime stones are crushed and hence these items have to be considered as component/parts of the hammer mills and would be eligible for cenvat credit. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not sustainable.
4. Shri R.K. Verma, ld. Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
6. As regards the grinding media balls and cylpebs, there is no dispute that the same are used as grinding media in grinding mill for grinding cement clincker into cement. In terms of the Boards Circular dated 1.4.2010, the grinding media balls are to be considered as components of the capital goods for the purpose of cenvat credit. In view of this, I hold that the grinding media balls and cylpebs, etc. used as grinding media in the grinding mills are capital goods and would be eligible for cenvat credit.
7. As regards the rods and hammers, since undisputedly, the same are used in the hammer mills, where the lime stones are crushed, the same have to be considered as part of the hammer mill and would be covered by the definition of capital goods and hence, would be eligible for cenvat credit.
8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member (Technical) Ckp.
1