Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce & St, Rohtak vs Panch Ratna Steel Pvt.Ltd on 1 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
Court No.III
Appeal No. E/54337/2014-SM
(Arising out of OIA No.274-276/SVS/RTK/2014 dt.21.5.14 passed by CCE(A), Delhi-III, Gurgaon)
Date of Hearing 18.06.2015
Date of Order: 01.7.2015
For approval & Signature:
Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
CCE & ST, Rohtak Appellant
Vs.
Panch Ratna Steel Pvt.Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri R.k.Grover, AR Present for the Respondent: Shri G.G.Gupta & Sh.R.S.Sharma, Advocates Coram: Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Final Order No.52066/2015 Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S. This appeal is filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order allowing Cenvat Credit availed by the respondent.
2. The respondent are engaged in the drawing of steel bright bar falling under chapter 7215.20 from black steel rod falling under chapter 7228.30 and 7214.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing Cenvat Credit on inputs, namely, black rod/bars used for clearance of their final products.
3. The process of drawing of steel bright bar from black steel bar has been held to be not amounting to manufacture in various judgements. In Shree Ram Wire Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad-III-2003 (151) ELT 593 (Tri.-Del.) it was held that the process of conversion of round bars into bright bars does not amount to manufacture. In Vee Kayan Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh-1996 (83) ELT 262 (SC), the conversion of black bars/rods into bright bars was held to be manufacture. This decision was followed in decision rendered in Geeta Bright Bar Works Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-V-2012 (277) ELT 67 (Tri.Mum.). Based upon the above judgements and the Circular issued by the Board, the respondents were issued show cause notice to reverse/pay back Cenvat Credit availed by them. The adjudicating authority found against the respondents herein and held that the respondents are liable to reverse/ pay back the Cenvat Credit. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby this impugned order was passed in favour of the respondents holding that the respondent are not liable to reverse or pay back the Cenvat Credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has relied upon Notification NO.28/2010-CE (NT) dated 1.9.2010.
4. The Tribunal in Ajinkya Enterprises vs. CCE, Pune-III-2013 (288) ELT 247 (Tri.-Mumbai) along with other judgements placed reliance on Super Forgings and Steel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai-2007 (217) ELT 559 (Tri.-Chennai) and observed that once duty on the final products has been accepted, credit cannot be denied even if the activity does not amount to manufacture.
5. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent and conceded by the Departmental Representative that on the very same issue, in the assessees own case, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.A/54157-54159/2014-EX (DB) dated 30/9/2014 (In the case of M/s.R.B.Steel Services, Shri Mahavir Bright Steel Udyog and Punch Ratna Steel Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak) has held in favour of the respondents.
6. In view of this, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
(pronounced in open court 1.07.2015) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.) Member (Judicial) mk 3