Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Cce & C, Raipur on 19 July, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 

WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, 

NEW DELHI-110066



COURT NO. II



E/Stay/57921/2013 in &

Central Excise appeal No. 57321/2013-SM



[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 06/RPR-II/2012 dated 1.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur]



Date of Hearing/decision: 19th July, 2013



M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,                               Appellant



	Versus



CCE & C, Raipur                                                    Respondent
Present for the Assessee      : Ms. Jeny, Advocate

Present for the Revenue       : Ms. S. Bector, A.R.

                                             

Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

			    

FINAL ORDER NO. 57048/2013



Per D.N. Panda

Learned Counsel justify use of shoes by the workers as norms to fulfil the requirement of Factories Act, 1948. She says that without safety shoes being worn the workers cannot work in the hot steel plant in Iron & Steel factory of SAIL. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not appreciate such an essential requirement of law for which he disallowed CENVAT credit.

2. Revenues submission is that when the goods in question was not used in or in relation to manufacture, dis-allowance is justified.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. The only reason for disallowance is that safety shoes are not used in the manufacture. No doubt it is not a capital goods but without shoes being worn by the workers carrying out manufacture activity is difficult. Therefore, use of such shoes is indispensable necessity for iron & steel factory where workers move on hot plates. Ensuring health of workers is mandate of section 7A(2) (c) of the Factories Act, 1948. Once the indispensable necessity is the requirement of welfare legislation and that is also a Central legislation, object thereof cannot be defeated. Such a spirit was also conveyed by Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.  2010 (260) ELT 369 (Bom.) and Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. CCE  2012 (286) ELT 579 (Tri.-Del.). Keeping the aforesaid merit in view, both stay application and appeal are allowed.

(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK