Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Alfred Herbert Limited vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 18 February, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Appeal No: E/342/2007 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No: dated passed by the Commissioner of.) 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? Yes 3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Alfred Herbert Limited Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I) Bangalore. Respondent
Appearance Shri M. G. Varadarajan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri K. Sambi Reddi, Authorised Representative (JDR) for the Revenue.
CORAM MR. T. K. JAYARAMAN, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 18.02.2008 Date of decision: 18.02.2008 ORDER No._______________________2008 Per Shri T. K. Jayaraman (Oral) This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No.12/2007-B-I dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore.
2. In this appeal, the issue involved is the denial of cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used for manufacture of spares for tyre press meant for Apollo Tyres Ltd. The learned advocate took me through the purchase order of Apollo Tyres Ltd. In terms of the purchase order, the appellants were required to manufacture and supply spares. On completion of the manufacture of these spares, the appellants were also required to fit them in the two machines belonging to Apollo Tyres Ltd. Therefore, in their record they had mentioned reconditioning / repair of 55 Tyre press. In view of these remarks, Revenue denied the cenvat credit. According to Revenue, the appellants used the spares in the reconditioning of the machinery. These spares were never cleared as such; moreover, there was no manufacture also. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (A) held that no cenvat credit is available for the appellants.
3. The learned advocate argued that the lower authorities have not appreciated the facts. He stated that it is very clear from the purchase order that the appellants first had to manufacture the various spares required which are given in Annexure to the purchase orders. Once they are expected to manufacture spares, then automatically they would be entitled for the cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used for manufacture of those spares. There is force in the contention of the appellants. It appears that the lower authorities have got carried away by the remarks reconditioning / repair of 55 Tyre press. The only point to be examined is whether the appellants had actually manufactured the spares. Just because the machines were brought to their factory for fitting the spares, the cenvat credit cannot be denied. Even if the appellants had done reconditioning work, if it is proved that they had actually manufactured the spares, then they are entitled for the cenvat credit on the inputs used for manufacture of those spares. This issue has not been properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue is remanded to the Original Authority for a de novo decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. All the issues are kept open. It is needless to say that the decision should be taken after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. Hence, the appeal is remanded to the Original Authority.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (T.K. JAYARAMAN) Member (T) //rv//