Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Indorama Textiles Ltd on 30 June, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. II APPEAL No.E/703/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.SVS/131/NGP-II/2007 dated 22/02/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :Seen of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :Yes authorities? ========================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Appellant Vs. Indorama Textiles Ltd., Respondent Appearance:
Shri.A.K.Prabhakar, JDR for appellant Shri.J.H. Motwani, Advocate for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R.Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing : 30/06/2011 Date of Decision : 30/06/2011 ORDER NO Per: Ashok Jindal
1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the Cenvat credit availed by the respondents on furnace oil, which was sent directly to the job-workers for generation of electricity, which was used by the respondents in manufacturing of their final products.
2. The issue arising out of the fact that whether the respondents are entitled for Cenvat credit on furnace oil, which was sent by them directly to the job-worker for generation of electricity, which was used by the respondents in manufacturing of their final products or not.
3. The issue stands settled in respondents own case reported in 2007 (220) ELT 471 (Bom), which was confirmed by the Honble High Court of Bombay reported in 2010 (260) ELT 382 (Bom), again which was confirmed by the Honble apex Court reported in 2010 (260) ELT A-83 (SC) wherein it was held that Cenvat credit is not deniable to the assessee for sending furnace oil directly to job-worker, who used it for generation of electricity. It was held that input can be directly forwarded to job-worker for production of intermediate goods, therefore, the issue has been settled in favour of the respondents holding that the respondents are entitled for Cenvat credit on furnace oil, which was sent by them directly to the job-worker for generation of electricity, which was used by the respondents in manufacturing of their final products. Therefore, we find no merits in the Revenues appeal, the same is dismissed by upholding the impugned order.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) pj 1 2