Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Natural Sugar And Allied Industries ... on 14 February, 2007
ORDER T. Anjaneyulu, Member (J)
1. Heard both sides.
2. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by both the authorities below. The point for determination in this case is whether copper strip is eligible for cenvat credit at all and if it is eligible whether it is an input or capital good.
3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro alloys falling under CSH No. 7202.00 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The preventive officers during the course of checking of cenvat accounts noticed that the assessee had raised cenvat credit on electrolytic copper strips falling under Ch. H. No. 7409.10 of CETA, 1985, that was purchased for fabrication and erection of furnace. On being objected that the said goods are not covered by the definition of capital goods and being agreed to the facts, the assessee reversed the credit of Rs. 94,608/-. Later on it was again raised, and on objecting it was reversed again. However, it is found that the assessee has raised cenvat credit of Rs. 1,57,530/- and Rs. 27,381/- vide RG-23A Part-II entry No. 8 & 9 dated 22.8.2003 treating the aforesaid goods as inputs which were procured under invoice No. 351 dated 28.1.2003 and No. 395 dated 5.3.2003 respectively.
4. It is alleged that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Rule 3, 4, 6 & 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 as they had availed inadmissible cenvat credit on inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and a show cause notice dated 30.7.2004 was issued proposing to disallow and recover wrongly availed input cenvat credit of Rs. 1,84,911/- under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and also to impose penalty and recover interest.
5. The show cause notice was first adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nanded Division who has dropped the show cause notice accepting the submissions made by the assessee that the said goods qualify the definition of input as per the certificate issued by the Technical Director of the factory and therefore, the credit is admissible one. Aggrieved by the same, the department has filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn upheld the order-in-original. The observation of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the effect that "the entire exercise appears to be totally revenue neutral in as much as the same amount of Cenvat Credit on the goods is admissible either as input or as capital goods; it is immaterial by whatever name one calls it." He has categorized the copper plates as inputs as observed by the Assistant Commissioner. The reason given by both the authorities below appears to be on correct lines and does not call for any indulgence by this Tribunal either to set aside or modify it. I find no merit in the revenue's appeal, hence reject the appeal.
(Dictated in court)