Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Twin Cities Steel Re-Rolling Mill (P) ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise , ... on 8 November, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order Nos. 26938-26939/2013 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/1954/2011 in E/3116/2011-SM E/Stay/1157/2012 in E/1632/2012-SM Appeal(s) Involved: E/3116/2011 & 1632/2012-SM [Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 94/2011 dated 21.09.2011 and 13/2012 dt 26.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad] Twin Cities Steel Re-Rolling Mill (P) Ltd. Toopranpet, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise , Customs and Service Tax - Hyderabad-III Opp: LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500004, Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Ms Sabrina Cano, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 08/11/2013 Date of Decision: 08/11/2013 In both the appeals issue involved is same. Therefore both the stay applications are taken together. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant and there is no request for adjournment also. The matter has been coming up for hearing frequently. The matter had been listed for hearing on 17.08.2012, 08.03.2013, 08.08.2013 and 11.10.2013 before now. On 08.08.2013 when the matter was called, the learned advocate could not produce copies of the decision relied upon by him to the Bench and to the authorized representative of the department. Therefore matter was adjourned to 11.10.2013 with a specific observation that there shall be no notice. Despite this, no one appeared on 11.10.2013 also nor there was any request for adjournment. Today also there is nobody present nor there is a request for adjournment. Therefore the matter is taken up for decision.
2. In both the cases appeals have been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with the Stay Order passed by him which required the appellant to deposit entire amount demanded by the lower authority. The demand arose because of denial of CENVAT credit on HR coils used by the appellant as capital goods.
3. It was the submission of the appellant before the lower authority that HR coils were used for relaying of the furnace and during the process of manufacture they get used up and therefore they are eligible for credit. However the learned AR submits that before the Tribunal, the appellants are claiming that these HR coils/plates have been used for relaying of ladles. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned AR that appellants themselves did not know what exactly was the use of the HR coils/plates and in such a situation, it is necessary to put the appellant to terms. At the same time, the issue as to whether HR coils/plates etc. used for maintenance and repair can be considered as inputs and whether credit can be allowed is a matter which has not attained finality and Honble Supreme Court has taken a decision that Larger Bench should be constituted to consider this issue. Having regard to this aspect as well as the fact that appellants have been changing their stand frequently, I consider that while the matter has to be remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on merits, at the same time the appellants are required to be put to terms in view of the circumstances explained above. Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance before the Commissioner (Appeals) who after taking note of the compliance as per this order proceed to decide the matter afresh without insisting on any further deposit. Needless to say appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss