Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Ms Indian Surcrose Ltd vs Jalandhar on 29 November, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH - 160 017
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH
COURT NO. I
APPEAL NO. E/61101/2018-Ex[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. LUD-EXCUS-001-APP-1085-18
dated 08.05.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana]
M/s Indian Sucrose Ltd. : Appellant(s)
VS
C.C.E., Jalandhar : Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant(s): Mr. Naveen Bindal, Advocate Present for the Respondent(s): Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.R. CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Date of hearing/decision: 29.11.2018 FINAL ORDER NO. 63488/2018 Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the Cenvat credit on various steel items namely H.R. Coils, H.R. Sheets, C.R. Coils, C.R. Sheets, Bars & Rods of steel and Welding Electrodes sought to be denied on the ground that these items have been used for maintenance of capital goods, repair of the plant & machinery and construction of structures for the support of capital goods and laying foundations for the capital goods, therefore, these are not entitle for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Considering the fact that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case 2 E/61101/2018-[SM] of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) wherein this Tribunal has held that any input used for fabrication of sports structures is not entitle for Cenvat credit as the said sports structures had become the immovable property and not excisable and the explanation of Rule 2(a) is only explanatory and is applicable retrospectively. The said decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal has been set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh reported in 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh).
4. Further, I find that as per the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur - 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh) and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. - 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) it has been held that any input used for the repair and maintenance of the capital goods is entitle for Cenvat credit. Admittedly, in the case in hand, all the items in question have been used by the appellant for fabrication/repair and maintenance of capital goods. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the inputs in question.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the impugned order; accordingly, the same is set aside.
6. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) RAS'