Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Raipur on 4 October, 2016
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066
BENCH-SM
COURT III
Excise/Cross/211/2010 in
Excise Appeal No.E/1778/2010-EX [SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.COMMISSIOENR/RPR/07/ 2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise, Raipur]
For approval and signature:
HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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 of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s.Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Raipur Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri.Abhishek Jaju, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri.Dharam Singh, A.R. Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 04/10/2016 FINAL ORDER NO. ____55435/2016____ PER: S.K. MOHANTY
Denial of cenvat credit on CTD bars and iron ore fines is the subject matter of present dispute.
2. Heard ld. Counsel for both sides and examined the records.
3. I find that the appellant has not contested denial of cenvat credit on CTD bars either before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before this Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the cenvat benefit on CTD bars cannot be interfered with at this juncture. With regard to removal of iron ore fines, I find that the Department has denied the cenvat benefit, referring to the provisions of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Since cenvat credit taken on iron ore cannot be equated with the fines generated during the process of screening/ sieving of the same, I am of the view that the case in hand is outside the scope and purview of sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 ibid for denial of the cenvat benefit. In this context, I find support from the decisions cited by the ld. Advocate in the case of CCE, Raipur vs. Sharda Engineering and Minerals Ltd. reported in 2014 (34) STR 618 (Tri.- -Del.), CCE, Raipur vs. Devi Iron and Power Ltd. reported in 2013 (287) ELT 494 (Tri.-Delhi.) and CCE, Meerut vs. Maha Ispat Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (293) ELT 380 (Tri.-Del.)
4. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside to the extent of denial of cenvat credit on iron ore fines. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court] (S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 0 2