C.C.E. Raipur vs M/S. Hira Ferro Alloys

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 42/RPR-I/2007 dated 22.02.2007 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Raipur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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 .Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Hira Ferro Alloys .Respondent

Appearance:

Shri A.K. Dhawan, DR for the Appellants

Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 25.02.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 50467/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Heard the parties.

2. This is the Revenues appeal wherein they are challenging the impugned order allowing the Cenvat Credit on the items namely Plates, Angles, Channels, Joist, Copper Rod and Copper, etc. which was used by the respondent for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery / capital goods. The show cause notice was issued to the respondent to deny Cenvat credit on these items as these items are neither capital goods nor inputs. The matter was adjudicated. Adjudicating Authority allowed credit on some items but disallowed Cenvat Credit on some items which was appealed against by the respondent before the Commissioner (A) disallowing the Cenvat Credit. The Ld. Commissioner (A) after examining the issue, allowed Cenvat Credit. Aggrieved from the said order, revenue is before me.

2. The Ld. AR submits that the respondent has not given any details of usage of the items in question for manufacturing of capital goods. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit.

3. On the other hand Ld. counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondent drew my attention to the show cause notice and submits that the only issue in this matter is that whether the respondent is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the items in question which have been used for repair and maintenance purpose in their factory and the said issue has been settled by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of UOI Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (Raj.) which has been affirmed by the Honble Apex Court.

4. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

5. The sole issue before me is to decide is that whether the respondent is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the items in question which have been used in repairs and maintenance of capital goods or not. The Issue has been settled by the Honble High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (Supra). Therefore, I hold that respondent has correctly taken the Cenvat Credit on these items.

6. Consequently, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order and same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

3

E/1339/2007-EX(SM)