Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E. Bharuch on 14 March, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad Appeal No.E/10410/2018-SM [Arising out of OIA No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-376-2017-18 dated 01.09.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara-I] M/s Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs C.C.E. Bharuch Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Sh. Vinay Kansara (Advocate) For Respondent: Sh. S.N. Gohil (A.R.) CORAM:
HONBLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/decision:14.03.2018 Final Order No. A/ 10536 /2018 Per: Dr. D.M. Misra:
Heard both sides.
2. This is an appeal filed against the order-in-appeal No. VAD-EXCUS-002-APP-376-2017-18 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara-I.
3. The short issue involved in the present case is: whether the appellant are entitled to avail Cenvat credit of duty paid on various items, namely, Fibrex Duraboard, Isowoolmax, Fibrefrex Ring and Silicate Heat Protect Canvas as capital goods.
4. The Ld. Advocate Shri Vinay Kansara for the appellant submits that all these items are used as accessories and components in their furnace, which is classifiable under Chapter 84 of CETA,1985, therefore, these items are falling under the scope of definition of the capital goods as components, spares and accessories and the goods falling under Chapter heading No. 82, 84, 85 and 90 of the CETA, 1985. He submits that these items are used in the furnace of the factory for manufacturing of Neutral Glass Tubes (Amber/Clear) & Neutral Glass Tubes (Fiolex/Clear), hence, eligible to credit. In support, the use of these items in the factory premises as accessories of furnace, the Ld. Advocate placed a certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer Shri Ramesh V. Vaghela dated 11.02.2015.
5. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
6. I find that the appellant in their reply to the show cause notice, and also subsequently before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) have categorically claimed all these items are used in the furnace and hence should to be considered as accessories, components of the capital goods(furnace) falling under Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985. They have in support submitted the chartered engineers certificate, and there is no contrary evidence or finding has been recorded by the authorities below except observing that these items are classifiable under Chapter 68 and 70 of CETA, 1985, therefore not eligible to credit as capital goods. In absence of any evidence that these items are not used in the furnace falling under Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985, the claim of the appellant should be accepted and accordingly, the credit of duty paid on all these items as accessories of capital goods is admissible to them. In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (D. M. Misra) Member (Judicial) Neha 2 | Page E/10410/2018-SM