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 0, Cited by 4]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S Triveni Engineering & Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Custons, C.E. & S.T., ... on 12 September, 2017

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH : ALLAHABAD
COURT No. II

APPEAL No.E/70365/2016-EX[SM]

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. NOI-EXCUS-002-APP-0260-15-16 dated 13/01/2016 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Noida)

M/s Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd.			Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Custons, C.E. & S.T., Noida		Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate					for Appellant
Shri P.K. Dubey, Supdt (AR), 				        for Respondent

CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)


Date of Hearing	:	12/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	12/09/2017


FINAL ORDER NO-70969/2017

Per: Ashok Jindal

Cenvat credit was denied on certain items on the ground that these are steel items and that these are not goods which were used as capital goods under Rule 2 (k) or Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The case of the appellant is that these are parts/components of capital goods and these have been used by the appellant for repair and maintenance of the machinery or to replace the old & worn-out parts during the repair and maintenance of the machines. Therefore, it appeared to Revenue that they are not entitled to avail Cenvat credit.

3. Learned A.R. has reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

4. Heard the parties. I find that in this case the items in question were used by the appellant for repair and maintenance of machines to replace the old and worn-out parts of the machines. Therefore, in the light of decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises reported in 2016 (341) ELT 372 wherein this Tribunal has held that the availability of Cenvat credit is on the basis of use in manufacture of goods, as the basis of availment of credit was on use of these items for repair and maintenance of machines, I hold that the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit on the items in question.

5. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) akp 1 2 APPEAL No.E/70365/2016-EX[SM]