Agarwal Foundries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 24/2009 dated 24/06/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

Agarwal Foundries Sy.66, Petbasheerabad Medchal Taluka, Ranga Reddy Dist. Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-I Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004 Andhra Pradesh Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Raghavendra B., Advocate Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan World Trade Centre No.404-406, 4th Floor, South Wing Brigade Gateway Campus No.26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore - 560 055 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. S. Teli, AR For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 05/03/2015 Date of Decision: 05/03/2015 CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20538 / 2015

Per: B.S.V. MURTHY

Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS Angles and Ingots. The issue in dispute is whether the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit of duty paid on Air-conditioner and furniture.

2. After hearing both the sides, I find that in this case air-conditioner has been used within the factory in the control panel room to keep the temperature down. There is no dispute that it has been installed in the factory. As regards furniture, the learned counsel relied upon the Boards circular issued by the Board vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX. dated 29.04.2011. In the circular it was mentioned that goods such as furniture and stationery used in an office within the factory are goods used in the factory and are used in relation to the manufacturing business and hence the credit of same is allowed. This circular was issued after the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically denying benefit of cenvat credit on certain activities which are not at all related to manufacture. The issue before me relates to the period April 2007. According to the definition of input as it existed during the relevant period, inputs used in the factory for any other purpose the credit is admissible. In this case there is no denial of the fact that furniture had been used within the factory. Under the circumstances, I have to hold that appellant is eligible for the benefit of cenvat credit and I hold so. In the result the appeal is allowed.

(Order pronounced in open court)

(B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER

iss