Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Scorodite Stainless (India) Pvt. ... vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 26 June, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-SM
Excise Stay Application No.E/S/59954/2013 in
Excise Appeal Nos.E/59317/2013[SM]
Excise Stay Application No.E/S/59955/2013 in
Excise Appeal Nos.E/59318/2013[SM]
Excise Stay Application No.E/S/59956/2013 in
Excise Appeal Nos.E/59319/2013[SM]
[Arising out of Order in Appeal No.42-44/VC/CE/JPR-II/2013 dated 09.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Jaipur].
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.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 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?
__________________________________________________
M/s.Scorodite Stainless (India) Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.O.P.Agarwal, C.A.
Present for the Respondent: Shri.R. Khanna, D.R.
Coram:Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.06.2014
FINAL ORDER NO. 52693-52695 DATED: 26.06.2014
PER: ARCHANA WADHWA
All the three stay petitions as also the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as a short issue is involved.
2. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items, by following the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global The appellant, during the course of adjudication, took a specific plea that the items in question have been used in the fabrication of capital goods. It is seen that the original adjudicating authority also sought for a report from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner as regards the use of items in question. As per the said report the items stand used in terms of reply filed by the assessee. However, lower authorities have not considered the said report of the Asstt. Commissioner and have denied the credit by observing that the nature of the inputs establishes their use as supporting structurals.
3. In as much as the issue relates to factual verification, I set aside the impugned orders and remand all the 3 appeals to the original authorities with direction to verify the appellants claim of use of the items in the fabrication of capital goods and to re-decide the matter accordingly.
4. Needless to say that the appellants would be given an opportunity to establish their stand by production of evidentiary documents.
5. The issue of limitation would also be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority, in terms of various decisions of the Tribunal, to be relied upon by the appellant. All the three stay petitions and also appeals are disposed of in above manner.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 3 2