Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Vardhman Special Steels Ltd vs Cce & St, Chandigarh-I on 23 August, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017
Single Member Bench
COURT NO.1
Appeal No. ST/53,54 & 55/2016
[Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-000-APP-109-111-15-16 dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Chandigarh-I]
,
Date of Hearing/Decision: 23.08.2016
For Approval & signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, 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
Vardhman Special Steels Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I Respondent
, Appearance Sh.Surjeet Bhaadu, Advocate- for the appellant Shri R.K. Sharma, AR- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) FINAL ORDER NO: 61220-61222/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant has filed these appeals against the impugned orders wherein the cenvat credit on transportation of hazardous waste was denied by the lower authority.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of MS Ingots etc. During the course of manufacturing of their finished goods, some hazardous waste has accumulated in their factory and as per norms of Pollution Control Board, the said waste is required to be disposed by the appellant periodically which does not fetch any value. The appellant removed the said hazardous waste form their factory and availed cenvat credit on transportation cost of the said hazardous waste. Revenue is of the view that the said hazardous waste has been removed outside the factory, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit on outward transportation of the hazardous waste and the said transportation services do not qualify input service as per Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. In these set of facts, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant to deny the cenvat credit and consequently to demand duty along with interest and imposing penalty on the appellant. The show cause notices were adjudicated, the Cenvat Credit was denied, consequently, duty was demanded along with interest and equivalent amount of penalties were also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant is before me.
4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
5. On going through the facts of the case, I find that without removing of hazardous waste from their factory, the appellant is not able to run their factory, therefore, the removed of hazardous waste is essentially and transportation of the hazardous waste is entitled as input service to the appellant. In that circumstance, the appellant has correctly availed the cenvat credit on transportation charges for removed of hazardous waste to run their factory.
Therefore, there is no merit in the impugned order. The same are set aside. The appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) Ashok Jindal Member (Judicial) rt 1