Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 20 May, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 20.05.2013
E/3885/2010 EX(SM)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 214-CE/ALLD/2010 dated 30.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad]
For Approval & Signature :
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
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?
Yes
3.
Whether their 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
M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Allahabad Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate - for the Appellant
B.B. Sharma, AR - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
FINAL ORDER No. 56539/2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This Appeal is filed by M/s U.P. State Sugar Corporation against the Order in Appeal No. 214-CE/ALLD/2010 dated 30.08.2010.
2. Brief fact of the case are that M/s U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) are engaged in manufacture of V.P. Sugar and Molasses falling under Central Excise Chapter Heading 17.01 and 17.03 of the Central Excise Tariff. During the course of internal audit of the records it was noticed by the Central Excise officers that during period from January, 2005 to December, 2005 the appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit/ Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 58,617/- on M.S. Sheets and Rs. 44,324/- on electrodes and accordingly the Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that neither M.S.Sheets nor electrodes qualify for as capital goods/inputs under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rule. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by original authority vide order dated 22.12.2009 who confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,02,941/-along with interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount. The appellant challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeal) who vide impugned order rejected their appeal. The appellants have challenged said impugned order before this tribunal.
3. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that Welding Electrodes and M.S. Sheets are used for repairs and maintenance of the capital goods within the factory of production. He submits that the Cenvat Credit is admissible to them in view of final decision in case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. reported in 2010 (256) ELT 690 Chhattisgarh and in case of Union of India Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.). These decisions squarely cover the facts of the present appeal. He therefore submits that Order in appeal is required to be the set aside.
4. Ld. DR appearing for the revenue reiterates findings to the lower authority and submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) has held that appellants have not produced any evidence that goods have been used in manufacture of capital goods as claimed by them. In such a situation the Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly rejected their appeal.
5. After hearing both sides, I find that in the Show Cause Notice it was alleged by the department that appellants have availed the irregular Modvat Credit/Cenvat Credit. I find that it is the submission of the appellant that these goods were used in repair and maintenance of the machinery in their factory. I find that the High Court of Chhattisgarh in case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. (Supra) has held that Cenvat Credit is admissible if inputs are used in manufacture of parts and components of the capital goods and also in repairs and maintenance of the capital goods within the factory. The Honble High Court of Rajasthan in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (Supra) has held that MS/SS plates used in workshop meant for repair and maintenance of machinery, are eligible for the Modvat Credit/Cenvat Credit. In view of these decisions that appellants are eligible for Cenvat Credit. I therefore set aside the Order in Appeal and allow the appeal.
(Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) Neha 2