Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Jk Tyres & Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/1216/2012 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.118/2012 dated 02.03.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), MANGALORE JK Tyres & Industries Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Dattatray D Bhat, Adv. For the Appellant Shri J Harish, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 21.09.2017 Date of Decision: 27.09.2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22277/ 2017 Per : M.V. RAVINDRAN This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.118/2012 dated 02.03.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding eligibility to avail Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on MS channels, angles, sheets, plates, etc. purportedly used for structural/repair or maintenance work in the factory.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that Cenvat credit availed of Central Excise duty paid on these materials has to be allowed as the said materials are used for structural/repair or maintenance work in the factory. This law, according to him is settled by the Honble High Court of Madras in the case of India Cements Ltd.
5. Learned DR reiterates the finding of the lower authorities.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that learned Counsels assertions that materials were used for the structural/repair or maintenance work in the factory is unsubstantiated. It is seen from the records that the appellant has not agitated the matter, on this point before the Adjudicating Authority or the first appellant authority, nor before the Tribunal stating that the materials in dispute are infact used for structural/repair or maintenance work in the factory premises and adducing evidence thereon. In the absence of evidence to indicate these materials are used for structural/repair or maintenance work in the factory, I find that the judgement of the High Court of Madras may not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case.
7. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is rejected as devoid of merits.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27.09.2017) M.V. RAVINDRAN JUDICIAL MEMBER RB 2