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 1, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Agarwal Foundries Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 October, 2017

        

 

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
BENCH - SM
COURT - I


Appeal(s) Involved:

E/3529/2012-SM 



(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 110-2012(H-1)CE  dated 18/09/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax(Appeals), HYDERABAD-I)

Agarwal Foundries Pvt Ltd
Appellant(s)




Versus



Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I 
Respondent(s)



Appearance:

Mr. B.V.KUMAR, Adv for the Appellant.


Mr. Raj Kumar, A.R.  for the Respondent.

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)


Date of Hearing: 24/10/2017

Date of Decision: 24/10/2017

Final Order No.    A/ 31722 / 2017    


[Order per: M.V. RAVINDRAN]
.

This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 110-2012(H-1)CE dated 18/09/2012.

2., Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding availment of CENVAT credit of central excise duty paid on various items like MS plates, angles, beams, channels etc. Appellant had availed CENVAT credit holding the view that these items were used for repairs and maintenances of furnace and other capital goods, while the lower authorities have rejected the CENVAT credit only on the ground that since these items are used for repairs and maintenance, the question of availing CENVAT credit would not arise. I find that the issue is no more res integra. In an identical issue this Bench in the case of Orient Cements vide Final Order No. 30528/2016 dated 10.06.2016; following the judgement of the Honble High Court of A.P. in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd [2012(278)ELT167(A.P)] held that such CENVAT credit is correctly availed and to reach this conclusion the Bench has also relied upon the judgement in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd Vs CCE [2010 (26)ELT 321 (SC).

4. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and I do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) M.V.RAVINDRAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neela Reddy 2