C.C.E. Raipur vs M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 14/RPR-I/2009 dated: 12.02.2009 passed by CCE Raipur]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble 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?

C.C.E. Raipur ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Mr. Kanu Verma, DR for the Appellants

Mr. Victor Das, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.28.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 54127 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs Raipur, wherein cenvat benefit on various goods have been allowed in favour of the Respondent herein, holding that those are spares, components and accessories of the capital goods installed in the factory. The grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is that though the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the cenvat benefit by holding that the disputed goods have been used as parts, components and accessories, but no specific chapter heading have been provided as to which machine/ machinery, those disputed goods are used as spares, components and accessories.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. The definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2 (a)(A) take within its ambit goods falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, and their spares, components and accessories for the purpose of determination of capital goods, entitling the manufacture to take the cenvat credit.

4. I find from the impugned order that based on the submissions of the respondent herein, though the appeal has been allowed by holding that the disputed goods are spares, components and accessories of capital goods and thus shall be eligible for cenvat benefit, but no findings have been recorded as to the tariff classification of the machine/ machineries, where the disputed goods were used as spares, components and accessories. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for ascertaining the tariff classification of the machine/ machinery installed in the factory of the respondent. If the spares, components or accessories are meant for the machines of Chapter 82, 84, 85 or 90 of the Tariff Act, 1985, the cenvat benefit shall be available to the Respondent and not otherwise. The Respondent shall co-operate in the adjudication proceedings for submission of desired documents/ records to substantiate its claim that the disputed goods are eligible for cenvat credit in terms of the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

6. In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of Revenue is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

1 | Page

E/1152/2009-Ex[SM]