Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Matsyodari Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs Cce Aurangabad on 27 October, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
E/86878/17
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/000/ APPL/048/17-18 dated 20.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
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 No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Matsyodari Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
CCE Aurangabad
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Gadekar, Advocate for the appellant Shri S.J. Sahu, ADC (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 06.10.2017 Date of decision : 27.10.2017 O R D E R No: ..
Per: Raju The appellants Matsyodari Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. are in appeal against denial of cenvat credit on HR coils/ sheets/ plates.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants argued that cenvat credit on HR Coils has been denied on the ground that the same cannot be considered as input for final product MS ingots manufactured by them. He argued that the said HR coils are used in induction furnace while making enclosure lining while stuffing raw material in furnace. This lining finally melts and is consumed after certain period. Ld. Counsel argued that revenue has not carried out any investigation about the manner of use of these goods. He pointed that earlier vide Order no. AV (127) 88/2014 dated 25.06.2014, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the credit of HR coils on the strength of chartered engineers certificate produced by them regarding the use. He argued that in the instant case, the same has been denied on the ground that the HR coils are used as supporting structure of capital goods. He argued that there is no ground to hold that the said HR coils are used as supporting structure.
3. Ld. AR relies on the impugned order.
4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that in respect of identical product for identical use claimed by the appellants, the credit has been allowed by Commissioner (Appeals) vide 25.06.2014, the appellants claimed that the said order correctly reproduced the use of the goods and they have challenged the assertion in the impugned order that the said goods are used as supporting structure. In the order dated 25.06.2014 the decision has been reached on the strength of a chartered engineers certificate, in the instant case no such certificate has been produced about the use of the said goods.
5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide after identifying the exact use of the said goods on the strength of chartered engineer certificate or other documents and decide the issue afresh.
6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in Court on ..............................) (Raju) Member (Technical) //SR
- 3 -
E/86878/17