Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Raipur vs M/S S.R. Ingot Pvt. Ltd on 10 January, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 10.1.2012
Excise Appeal No. 1445 of 2009-SM & Cross Objection No. 167 of 2009-SM
{Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 36/RPR-I/2009 dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur}
Coram:
Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? Yes
2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No
3. Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? No
CCE, Raipur Appellant
Vs.
M/s S.R. Ingot Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Appeared for Appellant : Shri R.K. Verma, A.R.
Appeared for Respondent : Shri Rashmi Malhotra/Shri Shalinder
Saini, Advocates
CORAM: Honble Shri Mathew John, Member (Technical)
Order No.dated.
Per Mathew John:
The Respondent were manufacturers of excisable goods namely M.S. Ingots. They had availed input credit of excise duty on M.S, Angles and M.S. Channel, beams, plates etc. Revenue made out a case that they could not have taken Cenvat credit of duty paid on such items because such items are not used in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots.
2. The case of the Respondents is that these items were used in fabrication of various capital goods like EOT crane fabricated and erected at site and the impugned inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods used in the manufacturing process. They were eligible to such credit based on various decisions of the Tribunal which were in force at the time of taking credit. The dispute is in respect of credit taken during the period 2004-2005.
3. The Revenue, on the other hand, points out the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Vs. CCE 2010 (253) ELT 440 and also of the apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. CCE 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) and submitted that they could not have taken Cenvat credit for such inputs used in the construction of immovable items like EOT cranes.
4. The Respondents also argue on the issue of time bar because Show Cause Notice for disallowing the credit taken in the year 2004 was issued on 8th August, 2008.
5. I have considered arguments on both the sides. Even after the decisions in the case of Vandana Global (supra) and Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra) there can be a doubt about inputs used in the manufacture of items like crane which is a machinery needed in the manufacturing process. The question whether credit on such items can be denied for the reason that the machinery is attached to earth is yet to be finally decided.
6. For the purpose of deciding this appeal it is sufficient to consider the argument of the Respondents that the Show Cause Notice is time-barred. Since there were various decisions in favour of the Respondents till the Larger Bench of the Tribunal gave the decision in the case of Vandana Global (supra), the Respondents cannot be accused of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty when taking such credit. Therefore I am of the view that demand is time-barred and therefore I reject the appeal filed by Revenue. Further cross-objections filed by the Respondent only supports the argument in the impugned order and there is no prayer for any separate relief. Therefore, the cross-objection is also disposed of accordingly.
(Pronounced in Court) (Mathew John) Member (Technical) RM