Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Heg Limited (Sponge Iron Division) vs C.C.E.Raipur on 2 November, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Excise Cross Appeal No. E/Cross/210/2010
Excise Appeal No. E/1942/2010-E[SM]
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 30/RPR-II/2010 dated 30.03.2010 passed by CCE (Appeals) Raipur]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
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 HEG Limited (Sponge Iron Division) ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
C.C.E.Raipur Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Sukriti Das (Advocate) for the Appellant Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar (DR) for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing/ Decision. 02.11.2015 Final Order No. 54000 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals-II), Raipur, upholding the demand confirmed in the adjudication order with regard to cenvat credit taken by the appellant on the disputed goods.
2. Ms. Sukriti Das, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the disputed goods were used for manufacture of Overhead Cranes, Induction furnace, Chimney and Ducts falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the Ld. Advocate, since the disputed goods have been used for manufacture of the capital goods falling under chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985, the same should qualify as capital goods for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit in terms of the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. To support her stand that duties paid on the disputed goods are eligible for cenvat benefit, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the following judgments delivered by the judicial forums:-
(a) Mundra Ports And Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs CCE reported in 2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHM-ST.
(b) CCE Jaipur vs Rajasthan & Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481 S.C.
(c) CCE, Trichurapalli vs India Cements Ltd. reported in 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) With regard to taking of 100% cenvat credit on the capital goods in respect of invoice No. 128301 dated 09.02.2005, the submission of the Ld. Advocate is that since, the year of receipt of the disputed goods was 2005-2006 and the credit was taken in next financial year i.e. 2007, taking of 100% cenvat credit is in conformity with the cenvat statute.
3. Per contra, Mrs. Kanu Verma Kumar, the Ld. DR for the Revenue reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. It is an admitted fact that the disputed goods were used as input for manufacture of machines/ machineries installed in the factory. It is also not in dispute that the machines where these disputed goods have been used as inputs are confirming to the tariff classification under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Thus, as per the unambiguous definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the disputed goods shall be considered as input in terms of Rule 2(a) of the said rules for the purpose of the cenvat benefit. I find that the judgment cited by the Ld. Advocate are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it has been held that the goods when used for manufacture of machines installed in the factory shall be eligible for cenvat credit, under the head input. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no merit in the impugned order in disallowing the cenvat benefit to the appellant.
6. With regard to the findings that in the year of receipt of the capital goods, the appellant had taken 100% cenvat credit, and thus, the same is not permissible, I find that both the authorities below have not addressed the issue properly in their respective orders. If the submissions of the Ld. Advocate are to be taken into consideration, then for receipt of the disputed goods in 2005, taking of cenvat credit in 2007 is in conformity with the cenvat statute. However, since this particular aspect has not been properly addressed, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the duty paid documents for ascertaining the fact regarding date of receipt of the capital goods and taking of cenvat credit. If the date of taking cenvat credit is not in the same financial year of receipt of the capital goods, then the credit shall be permissible to the appellant.
7. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order to the extent of denying cenvat credit on the impugned goods namely, MS CTD Bar, MS Rounds, TMT, Plates, MS Angles, Channels, Beams, Rails etc. is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant. With regard to taking of 100% cenvat credit in the year of receipt of capital goods, I allow the appeal by way of remand to the original authority for de-novo adjudication as per observations made vide paragraph 6 above.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial) Neha 4 | Page E/1942/2010-Ex[SM]