Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad vs Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd on 21 April, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. E/713/07 -Mum
(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. AT/52/RGD/2007 dated 26.02.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Appellant
Vs.
Bhushan Steel & Strips Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.C. Khole, JC(AR) for the appellant Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing : 21/04/2014 Date of decision : 21/04/2014 O R D E R No:..
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein for the period January 2004 to March 2004, the ld. Commissioner allowed input credit on steel plates, sheets, bars, angels, channels, tubes, welding electrodes holding that these are being used for manufacturing of capital goods, which was ultimately used in the manufacture of final product. Revenue is of the view that as these items do not fall under Chapter 82, 84, 85 or 90 therefore, they are not capital goods. Moreover, these items are not used in the manufacturing of final product, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for input credit on these items.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the fact that it is not in dispute that all the items are used in the manufacturing of capital goods which are ultimately used in the manufacturing of final product. Therefore, as per the definition of inputs under Rule 2K of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, wherein it has been stated that any input which is used in the manufacturing of final product, directly or indirectly is entitled for input credit. As all the above items are used by the respondent indirectly by way of capital goods in manufacturing of final product, therefore the respondents are entitled for input credit on the above items.
4. With these observations, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order; same is upheld. The Appeal filed by the revenue deserves no merits, hence dismissed. (Dictated in Court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) //SR 2