C.C.E. Raipur vs M/S. Tirumala Balaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/1511 & 1514/2008-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the items in question are used in the assessee's factory for the fabrication of capital goods, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit on those items, as settled by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills; such use is not disqualified merely because the fabricated goods themselves are capital goods rather than components of a supporting structure. Whether particular items were in fact used for fabrication of capital goods, rather than for supporting structures, is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence, which here was the superintendent's report and a Chartered Engineer's certificate confirming such use; on that factual finding, Cenvat credit on the items is admissible.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 26 & 25/RPR-I/2008 dated 17.03.2008 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. Tirumala Balaji Alloys Pvt. Ltd. .Respondent
M/s. Salasar Sponge & Power Ltd.
Appearance:
Shri G.R. Sharma, 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. 50483-50484/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
Revenue is in appeal against impugned orders wherein Cenvat Credit on various items namely M.S. Angle, M.S. Channels, M.S. Beams, M.S. Joist Chequered Coil, etc. have been allowed by the Ld. Commissioner (A) on the premise that these items have been used by the respondents for fabrication of capital goods. The contention of the Revenue is that as these items have been used for supporting structures, therefore, they are not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit in the light of the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. C.C.E. Delhi-III 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) which have been clarified by the Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd Vs. C.C.E. Raipur-2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri-LB).
2. The contention of the respondents Counsel is that these items have been used for fabrication of capital goods and to that extent report of the superintendent support their contention and same has been certified by the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer. Therefore, it is the case on fact base whether these items have been used for supporting structure or for capital goods which has been verified and found that used for capital goods. Therefore, Cenvat Credit is rightly allowed by both the lower authorities.
3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
4. In this case the short issue before me is that whether the items in question which have been used by the respondent for fabrication of capital goods is entitled for Cenvat Credit or not. The said issue has been settled by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills (Supra) wherein the Honble Apex Court has held that if capital goods have been fabricated in the factory itself, the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat Credit. The fact of availment of Cenvat Credit and usage of these items in question has been verified by the concerned superintendent and also verified by the Charted Engineer. Both of them have confirmed that items have been used by the respondent in fabrication of capital goods. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned orders are correct holding that respondents are entitled to take Cenvat Credit on these items.
5. Accordingly impugned orders are upheld. Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Cross objection by the respondent is also disposed off.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
3
E/1511 & 1514/2008-EX(SM)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free