Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Varun Industries Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 1 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
COURT NO. III
Excise Appeal No. 128-129/2011-EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 376/CB/CE/JPR-II/10 Dated 19.10.2010 passed by CCE, Jaipur-II]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member
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?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Varun Industries Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-II Respondents
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Appearance:
Shri O.P. Agarwal, CA for the Appellant Shri P.K. Sharma, AR for the Respondent Date of Hearing: 11.06.2013 Date of Decision: 01.07.2013 FINAL ORDER NO. 56817-56818/2013 Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of S.S. cold Rolled Patta falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and had availed the benefit of Cenvat credit on various shapes and sections as also on the JE Tow Trucks. Total credit of duty involved under E/128/11 is Rs. 88,468/- , which stand denied for the said appellant along with the imposition of penalty of identical amount. In appeal No. E/129/11 credit of Rs. 378578/- stands denied on the ground that the same is availed in respect of various Sheet, Plates, Joists, Channels etc, which cannot be treated as cenvatable goods. Penalty of identical amount stand imposed.
2. I find that the appellant have taken a categorical stand that such iron and steel items were used in fabrication of capital goods, in which case the same would be admissible inputs. Similarly in respect of JE Tow Trucks, they have contended that since the same are used for movement of the goods in the factory, they are admissible cenvatable item. The demand also is barred on the point of limitation.
3. Without going into merits of the case, I find that the appeal can be disposed on limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice stands issued to the appellant by invoking longer period of limitation. It is seen that before availing the credit, the appellant has addressed letter dated 15.12.2006 to their jurisdiction Deputy Commissioner intimating their intention to avail credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their capital goods. The credit so availed is also reflected in the statutory record maintained by them as also in the reports so filed by them. Apart from that there are different decisions of the Tribunal as also of various High Court indicating that such use would be admissible. When there are different views expressed at different stages by the Tribunal and the High Court, suppression cannot be attributed to the assessee so as the invoke a longer period of limitation. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut 2004 (167) ELT 494 (S.C.).
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order as confirmation of demands, is barred by limitation. Both the appeals are accordingly allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
(Pronounce in the open Court on 01.07.2013) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Jyoti* ??
??
??
??
3